Talk:Smolensk air disaster

Question: Why didn't they?

4th paragraph: The accredited representatives and advisors from the Republic of Poland were not present during its presentation. br

 * Did russian investigators invite them?
 * Why didn't they show up? 
 * Were they required/expected too show up?

74.14.182.170 (talk)

"Awareness" of 2008 flight

The following text from the article is strange: "The Captain and First officer were also likely well aware of a 2008 flight when the President of Poland ordered a change in destination right before departure and again while airborne. The Captain and First Officer were First Officer and Navigator, respectively, on that flight."
According to the polish wikipedia pages on those two individuals, the last sentence is true. However, the word "likely" seems poor here. Of course they new about the 2008 flight. The were both in the cockpit! Remove the word "likely" and add a good citation for the fact that they were First Officer and Navigator on the 2008 flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.112.139 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not reread them, but as I recall this is addressed in some detail in the MAK report and largely dismissed in the Polish one. Since we cannot know what was in the minds of the crew the correct approach would seem to be to refer in summary to what the investigation reports had to say, recognising the extreme sensitivity of the matter. --AJHingston (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My original reason for writing "likely" was the MAK report surmised this incident played in the minds of the crew and may have affected their decision making. Of course the Smolensk Captain and First Officer knew about the 2008 incident, they were in the cockpit for it. The question is whether they were thinking about it on approach to Smolensk. We will never know the answer to that question so the issue is how to address the uncertainty of the matter. The MAK report does discuss it in some detail. I have yet to read the Polish report due to real life getting in the way, but when I do I will be sure to make relevant adjustments to the text. Anyone is of course welcome to do the same should they get to it first. N419BH 05:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

An independent investigation vs. Russian propaganda

The official investigation is led by Russians, who are judges in their own case. All the evidence are in their hands. The official Polish Committee don’t have the direct access to the evidence (wreck, black boxes) and it works under a great political pressure. It mostly repeats the Russian version adding only small corrections. On 8 July 2010 Polish opposition politicians formed a Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe. They invited some independent experts from abroad. You can read about some of these experts here:
Wiesław Binienda http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/
or http://www.uakron.edu/engineering/research/profile.dot?identity=1064521
Kazimierz Nowaczyk http://cfs.umbi.umd.edu/cfs/people/kazik.html
Gregory Szuladziński http://www.simulate-events.com/principals-resume.html/
Michael Baden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden

The official site of the Parliamentary Team is here: http://smolenskzespol.sejm.gov.pl/
This independent investigation is mostly censored in the mainstream media in Poland but is widely described by some independent media. In these media there are also journalists who worked before in Polish public broadcasting corporation “Telewizja Polska” but they were fired or degraded after they tried to investigate the circumstances of the Smolensk Catastrophe (eg. Anita Gargas, Dorota Kania, Jan Pospieszalski).
There was a public hearing in Brussels held by the Parliamentary Team with, inter alia, experts and family members of the victims, video here (partially in english):
http://vod.gazetapolska.pl/1423-wysluchanie-publiczne-w-pe-w-sprawie-trudnosci-wyjasnienia-przyczyn-katastrofy-smolenskiej
and a short report on it here (you can use google translate, despite small errors the meaning should be understood):
http://niezalezna.pl/25927-smolensk-byly-dwie-eksplozje — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyt13 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK thank you. My primary concern is maintaining neutral point of view. At first instinct this information seems as though it may be worthy of inclusion (primarily due to it being a parliamentary investigation). However, I believe we must consider it a fringe theory at this time. I say this due to the nature of the claims made (basically that both the Russian and Polish accident investigations were a cover-up). I will ping the Wikiproject Aviation accident investigation task force to gather additional input, and perhaps a few more individuals fluent in Polish who can help dissect these sources. N419BH 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is worthy of inclusion. IMHO, we should report this and present the conclusions reached, the same as the other two investigations. The reader can then be left to decide which version they believe. Chronological order would seem to be the best way for the three. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would suggest then to restore my previous version, I mean to undo this removal. Polish is my mother tongue, if you need some more help. Voyt13 (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you wait a bit. There is no rush and other editors should be given the chance to voice their opinions. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Voyt I agree with Mjroots, and actually I'd suggest that you shorten it somewhat or it's likely to be reverted again. Say what the committee is, who it is composed of (not specifically but generically aka opposition politicians), and then state their conclusions. You don't need the various dates and the timeline of the committee's findings. Double check the copyright on that animation too and make sure it's compatible with Wikipedia's licensing (needs to be GNU, CC-BY-SA, or public domain). Also, please be careful to maintain a neutral point of view in your writing; even if you personally believe the Russian and Polish accident committees are incorrect their findings as official government investigations deserve equal weight in relation to each other, and potentially more weight than this separate investigation though we have yet to determine that. N419BH 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Parliamentary Committee is composed of 96 members listed here. They are deputies (MPs) and senators of the main opposition party Law and Justice. The committee is cooperating with, inter alia, experts listed before (Wiesław Binienda, Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Gregory Szuladziński, Michael Baden) There are reports (like "The White Book of The Smolensk Tragedy"), transcripts from meetings, press conferences, public hearings, where the results of works are shown. The work of the Committee is still in progress and is supposed to end by the end of 2012, when a final report should be released. The video I inserted is a part of presentation of the simulation performed by one of the expert, Wiesław Binienda, and can be found here or similar here. An extensive presentation performed on 08 September 2011 by Binienda and Nowaczyk can be found here: part1 part2 part3 part4 part5. I don't think the section I placed was too long considering the proportion between this and the official version, which was scientifically proven to be false, internally inconsistent or at least strongly undermined. There aro no counterexamples of a simulation or such detailed scientific analysis which would come from the official committees. So, talking about neutral point of view, I would base more on scientific researches. However, until the investigation is not government's official, I agree that it should be presented at the end, as a contrary. Regards, Voyt13 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Important (in english): Analysis of the Polish Governmental Plane Crash in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010 by Prof. Wiesław K. Binienda, Ph.D., F. ASCE. Voyt13 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The most interesting one I found from MAK was this [1] which explains the Pilot Error/CFIT explanation quite well. N419BH 18:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

RT can't be considered as a reliable source of information, you can read about its, to say at least, politicization here. First, the information about an additional person in cockpit is a lie:

Gen. Blasik wasn't in the cockpit

There was no voice of Blasik. Second, the pilots couldn't perform the maneuver "go around" because of failures detected by [TAWS] and presented by dr Nowaczyk. The record of conversation on black boxes (Polish side has only access to copies) has been falsified. So, there was no pilot error proven Voyt13 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another news from the Parliamentary Committee: On 27 June 2012 at the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee there was a presentation held by Kazimierz Nowaczyk. In the conclusions he stated:

• The plane flew over the birch at a height of 20 meters above the ground, did not collided with a tree, has not lost the tip of the left wing in the collision with the birch.
• For the next two seconds it was flying straight and rose up, and at the point TAWS # 38 reaching a record height of 35 meters above the ground.
• After TAWS # 38, 144 meters after the birch the plane made a sharp turn left, which is against its aerodynamics (if it was as a whole).

Refs: Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 1 and Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 2 Voyt13 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see no new comments from none of you. I updated the section, removed some parts, but also added some new facts. Then I restored it. Regards, Voyt13 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is all this? Aren't things like this supposed to be backed by various independent sources? Opinions of three polish experts who were selected by a commission headed by a polish national-catholic is all that is needed to publish stuff like this? Not to mention that the credibility of at least one of them is very questionable - Katastrofa profesora Biniendy (also note one of the comments under that article stating that his wife represents some of the families of the victims of smolensk crash). And what are the results of this "investigation"? Did it produce anything that you can go to court with or it's just all talk - "presented/said/stated"?--95.24.34.94 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is plenty of black PR like this about experts like Binienda. For explanation, eg. here: Binienda invites prosecutors to the U.S. or http://niezalezna.pl/29062-prokuratura-markuje-spotkanie-z-prof-binienda or about Binienda himself http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/ . The results are that, inter alia, they definitely deny the official reports. And yes, the suitable report about suspicion of committing a crime has been reported to the prosecution. It was about forgeries in the report of the official government's commision: http://www.rp.pl/artykul/907771.html Voyt13 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's totally not obvious. According to Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines the only way to confirm or deny his and this comission's findings, that I believe everyone agrees are surprising and important, even exceptional, is to provide multiple independent high-quality sources. We need universities themselves to put their sings under such findings, it must be in reports of some sort of a European fact finding commision, NASA's word would be good too, even the US department of state's opinion matters here. And there's nothing of the like in here.176.14.114.151 (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you knew the realities of Polish-Russian relations, you would understand that it's obvious. The Bininda's report is published on the official website of University of Akron : http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/Parlament%20November%202011%20-%20English.pdf and many scientists sing under these findings (after conrefence in Pasadena, California http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtdvn4GiNR0 and after meetings at Polish universities) , although I don't know of any official statement of any university (in Poland mainly because of the political pressure). However, there is an opinion of the chairman of Polish Academy of Sciences about need to appoint an international investigation http://wpolityce.pl/wydarzenia/26757-prof-michal-kleiber-prezes-pan-opinia-zagranicznych-ekspertow-wydaje-sie-potrzebna-sprawy-w-kraju-przybieraja-fatalny-obrot . There is also a petition to the White House to set up an international investigation: http://wh.gov/zMU . Some associations in Poland involved in this case published an appeal: http://www.onepoland.eu/ . Voyt13 (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All valid points Voyt13. Unfortunately, this article has been nothing more than an unsophisticated and endlessly regurgitated agit-prop at best. Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call as always Robert! Voyt13 great job as well! Your contributions Voyt13 are for the most part the only reliable part of this article, the rest, shall we say, was written in some poorly ventilated bunker near Moscow. --WingManFA2 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the new section on Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe needs to be pruned down to one sentence the article should remain neutral and balanced and we cant add every new theory by what appears to be a somewhat bias committee. We already have information on the official report and balance that with the Polish response. We need to balance the article and not add undue weight by adding every fringe suggestion to the article (fringe being anything outside the official Russian and Polish investigation). All we need is some suggestion what the reduced sentence should say. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The investigation of the Polish Parliamentary Group is not a "fringe suggestion" (there are some really fringe theories, which have not been described in this article). This committee consists of officials and is a part of an official institution (Parliament). The cooperating experts are not anonymous, they are reputable scientists working on universities, members of scientific organizations and national institutions (eg. Gregory Szuladzinski in Australian National Security Researchers Directory http://www.secureaustralia.org.au/index.php/researchers/view/376 ; Wiesław Binienda http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/aboutme.html and his researches on the catastrophe published on the official site of the University of Akron http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/researchnew.html ). All the reports and hypothesis published in the section Polish Parliamentary Group... are deeply examined. There are also still unexplained issues like "autopsies" made by Russians, which consisted of over 95% false body parameters of the victims, the alleged finishing off the wounded - the shots that can be heard on the amateur video etc... We will not know the truth until an international investigation is not appointed. A petition to U.S. Congressmen and Senators to establish an independent international commission is here. Voyt13 (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it ticks all the boxes for a fringe theory, the non-govermental group rejects the official findings (both Russian and Polish) and as we use the term fringe theory to describe ideas that depart from the prevailing or mainstream view that is both official reports. We have to keep a balance in wikipedia, keep a neutral point of view and not give overdue weight. So as I suggested we need to remove most of the section and add a brief summary and I propose we change to "In July 2010 a group of experts was formed by a Polish Parliamentary Group to investigate the accident, the group rejected both official reports and claim the accident was caused by two explosions. The report of the group was presented at a public hearing on 28 March 2012 hosted by the European Conservatives and Reformist Group to try and gain support for an international enquiry." MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Polish Parliament is not a fringe organization. It is an official body of the Polish Government. I suspect you are confusing Polish Parliament with your own not-so-democratic government bodies in Russia. --WingManFA2 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said that the Polish Parliament is a fringe organisation but note the committee which was set up by a parlimentary group is not part of the government. When I suggested is that any group that contradicts two official enquiries and has conclusions that differ widely from the mainstream is a fringe idea as I explained above. Not sure what "with your own not-so-democratic government bodies in Russia" is about but it looks like a personal attack to me and clearly not a neutral view on the subject. Suggest you have a read of some wikipedia policies particularly WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that your feelings are hurt, how 'bout a virtual hug? No one is accusing your country (Russia), or its good people as a whole, but rather an irrefutable scientific evidence exists that suggests that the Russian government's "investigation" of this "accident" stinks to high heaven. A parliamentary group is a part of the government i.e. Parliament = Part of the Government responsible for representation, legislation and parliamentary control. It isn't that complicated, you know. Wiki has a article that explains what "Parliament" is. Look it up. --WingManFA2 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not hurt my feelings more amused about your bias assumption that anybody that disagrees with your point of view must be Russian. And please dont be condescending it is like your other comments seen as a personal attack, next one will get you a formal warning, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I uphold my opinion that the section should remain as it is right now and then the balance is maintained. The section is already a summary. The problem is we don't have a non-bias committee so far. Both MAK and the Polish Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents are biased. The previous activity of the MAK commission had already aroused controversies, eg. http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/politics/news/18907/ not to mention about the politicians related like Sergei Ivanov and his contribution to war crimes in Chechnya or links to Russian services responsible for assassinations (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko). Also, Polish Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents is led by a politician. If any independent international committee wasn't established so far, we should present all the three reports. Voyt13 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood but as I have said the section is to large and gives undue weight to another unofficial (as regard to accident investigation is involved). I understand that some people are not happy with the results of the official investigations which is why we should mention this report but not the large section of text which goes into far to much detail that our sections on the official reports dont. You say that the Polish accident committte is led by a politician but isnt the Polish Parliamentary group that set up this new investigation also a bunch of politicians? I agree that in the unlikely position of an international independent investigation being held then that should be given equal weight. Although I have suggested some new text above we really need some other opnions on this from other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out one aspect that has been raised here, the crash site video has been discussed before in the talk page archive. The "shots" may be explosions from the wreckage, or Russian soldiers firing to keep bystanders away. The "alleged finishing off the wounded" makes little sense, as all of the people on board the plane would have died in the impact from the crash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense, as the news "all died" (given in the first minutes after the crash when it couldn't be verified and when no rescue operation was carried out) was repeatedly questioned. Especially after the fake autopsies made by Russians. The turned on siren could have been used to drown out the sounds. The sounds are characteristic of shots, what else could it be? There are many analysis of that video, there are indistinct voices interpreted as "don't kill us!" in Polish [2] , strange voices in Russian with laughings . Voyt13 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Parliamentary gruop consists of politicians and I don't deny it may be biased. But I wanted to say that the two official committees are biased also. Furthermore, there are non-political experts cooperating with the parliamentary group, I think, much more reputable than the experts of the Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents. Voyt13 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

All of this is speculative to the point of being original research. The article is limited to covering what reliable sources have said. The crash of the plane was non-survivable, and there would have been no survivors to "finish off".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Section 1.14 of the Polish government report into the crash says that everyone on board the plane suffered multiple injuries that were impossible to survive. The stuff about Russian soldiers shooting survivors is pure blog speculation. Unless some proper sourcing is found, I am going to remove the "neutrality disputed" tag, as this should not be used as a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT response.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also revisited the archive and spotted an interesting prediction that this "investigation" already got away form you gentlemen, and it indeed did "Gaping holes in Russia's Polish air crash report" by Diana West About the author: West has contributed essays and features to many publications including: The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, and Women's Quarterly. She has also written fiction for The Atlantic Monthly and has been a columnist for The Washington Times and Scripps Howard News Service and United Media. As a CNN contributor, West frequently appeared on the Lou Dobbs shows. She blogs at dianawest.net.

And this is what she said: "The answers Russia presented to the world in its official 2011 crash report are wholly unsatisfactory. Indeed, the Moscow-controlled crash investigation seems to have been designed to suppress or tamper with evidence to exonerate Russia of all responsibility for an accident -- or guilt for a crime ...Like a tired rerun of an old horror movie, the Russian pattern of investigation into the 2010 Smolensk crash is the Russian pattern of investigation into the 1940 Katyn Forest Massacre ...The Russians assert that Polish pilot error, induced by pressure to land supposedly by the Polish president himself, caused the crash. Poles, particularly those associated with the late president's conservative Law and Justice party, see something far more sinister.

In this worst case scenario, Russian air controllers incorrectly informed Polish pilots they were on the proper glide path when that wasn't true. On purpose? If so, the world has witnessed the mass assassination of a government. And done nothing." --WingManFA2 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the Examiner article is that it fails to point out sufficiently that the main published finding of CFIT was accepted by both the Russian and Polish teams. The Examiner article adds little to what is known already.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"All of this is speculative to the point of being original research. The article is limited to covering what reliable sources have said". For starts, let us take a closer look at the "reliable sources" you like Ian:

RT, Wiki's own article: "In the opinion of contributors to sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda. A 2005 report conducted by the U.S. government operated VOA, interviewed Anton Nosik chief editor of a major English-language computer internet site in Russia, in which he described the creation of Russia Today as an idea smacking of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns, and also noted that the channel was not created as a response to any existing demand. While another article in the Digital Journal called RT a "pro-Putin news outlet" and its advertising campaign as "open propaganda war". A 2009 article in The Guardian by their former Russia correspondent Luke Harding about RT's advertising campaign described the network as "unashamedly pro-Putin" and saw it as part of the Kremlin's attempt to create a "post-Soviet global propaganda empire." As long as clearly identified propaganda outlets are cited here, this article is not neutral. Hence, you had no basis for removing Robert's neutrality tag.

As far as the original research is concerned, you have to be mindful Ian, that in order to impeach scientific findings of the world-class NASA scientists, Boeing Designers, Explosives Experts, and countless others, you have to scientifically prove (again, your beloved Russia Today, and other Putin's propaganda outlets aren't' going to cut it Ian) that what they state is scientifically invalid. Let me explain it to you in plain language: you have to rewrite the laws of mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, materials' sciences, and others. I will be anxiously awaiting for you to explain how a 150 ton aircraft can do in the air what an agile fighter plane can't do. You can even use an example of Mig-29, if you wish. For this reason, I am reverting Robert's tag. Should you revert it again, it will be considered vandalism. --WingManFA2 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should be taken with a pinch of salt, since it has been added by an editor with a long history of POV pushing on the talk page, accusing other editors of being Putin's stooges etc. For this reason, I would like to ask for input from other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it must be stressed once again, that in this investigation there are no NASA scientists or Boeing designers or Explosives experts, and most importantly, there are no countless others. There is a total of three experts. All of them are Poles, and they work for a group headed by a polish ultraconservative politician. Until there are sources that can be read without google translate, this is anything but an independent investigation.93.80.137.44 (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"I guess it must be stressed once again, that in this investigation there are no NASA scientists or Boeing designer or Explosives expert, and most importantly, there are no countless others" You are incorrect Sir. "There is a total of three experts" - Are you sure 'bout that? Let us start with a few:

Dr. Harvey Kushner: "There's nothing in history like this, where you have an airliner that goes down with such important people, and within a matter of hours the Russians announce that it was pilot error, or someone was in the cockpit. This is sheer nonsense."

Credentials: As a recognized authority on terrorism, Dr. Harvey Kushner has advised elected officials, military personnel, and foreign governments as well as trained federal agencies from the DHS to the FBI, to name a few. He currently serves as an expert for the Polish Parliament tasked with investigating the April 10, 2010, plane crash that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski.

Dr. J. Michael Waller: "Historically things like this have not been a coincidence in Russia [...] Of course it's unusual. It's even more unusual that everybody seems to be putting faith in the former KGB to run a transparent and impartial investigation, under Vladimir Putin's personal supervision. It's absurd. The Polish government should be demanding transparency as a matter of principle, to remove all doubts - and the Russian government should be offering it without being asked. If the Russian government takes offense at such a request or resists it in any way, then we will know whom to blame for the crash. I think people in the West are afraid of making that request because they are afraid to know the answer to the question"

Credentials: Foreign Propaganda, Information, Warfare, Political Warfare, Public Diplomacy, Influence Operations. Mr. Waller has been a scholar-practitioner in public diplomacy, political warfare, psychological operations and information operations in support of US foreign and military policy for more than 25 years. He was a member of the staff of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, served on the White House Task Force on Central America, was an operative for members of the White House Active Measures Working Group, and has been a consultant to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the US Information Agency, the US Agency for International Development, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the US Army. In 2006 he received a citation from the Director of the FBI for "exceptional service in the public interest."

Colonel Tomasz Grudziński, ret. former Deputy Director of the Government Protection Bureau (abbr. BOR – Biuro Orchony Rządu):

"What took place [in regards to providing adequate security for President Lech Kaczyński, and the Polish delegation flying to Smoleńsk, Russia by the Government Protection Bureau wasn't a simple dereliction of duty, but rather, it was a [premeditated and] conscientiously carried out effort of somebody, who in an unofficial capacity, was diminishing the importance of all international visits undertaken by our late President, Mr. Lech Kaczyński".

Major Robert Trela (Government Protection Bureau): "I was asked questions regarding the [breaking of the] TU-154M windows [with crowbars by the Russians], and if I could comment on that, and if it could be considered a piece of evidence? […]. The aircraft's windows in particular, are, and should, of course, be considered an important piece of evidence. Why? Because, just as any window, in any vehicle, or, in any means of transportation, it is subject to [the internal barometric] pressure [and stress]. Even in a common car, as it [the glass window] is being mounted [onto the vehicle] and is glued-on, it is already then, subject to internal stresses […] as I was viewing photos of the [TU-154M] windows at an angle; I noticed clearly visible discoloration in the windows. This blemish, this discoloration, showed evidence of internal stresses to which they were subjected. An aircraft, and its windows, as it travels in the air, or not, are always subject to the pressure […] In order to conclusively discard a hypothesis of an internal explosion on the plane, the analysis of the pressure exerted on these windows, would have provided a considerable amount of invaluable information"

Credentials: Chief Pyrotechnics/Explosives Expert, Government Protection Bureau, BOR --WingManFA2 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)