Jump to content

Talk:Smolensk air disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.55.243.205 (talk) at 01:29, 8 September 2012 (→‎Polish parliamentary investigation/break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"non-survivable"? Why so sure? The plane flying at a speed below 270 km/h falls on a muddy, wooded terrain... I don't know, it may be non-survivable, especially in the epicenter of the explosions, but the plane was large... We cannot verify it and, rightly, there is nothing about it in the article, but here on the talk page we can discuss it. "Everyone suffered multiple injuries" - standard sentence characteristic of traffic accidents, pasted in the Polish government report , which reliability have been discussed before. Voyt13 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
This has previously been flagged for WP:FRINGE issues. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's fringe here Ian? The sworn testimonies of the witnesses who were deposed before an official body of the Polish government - read Parliament? Or, is the Parliament fringe? Is there something "fringe" about these individuals' credentials? Your associate posting anonymously from a Russian IP made some peculiar statements including the national origin of the experts, their number, and their credentials. These were answered in an un-fringe-like fashion, and and in an un-fringe-like factual manner. With warmest regards, --WingManFA2 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "an associate" of any editor on this page, or any government. If you cannot assume good faith in this thread, please stop posting in it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting I was happy to suggest that this unofficial investigation was worthy of a mention (if only a few lines) but thanks to WingManFA2s detailing some details about the three individuals I am sure that we are heading in the fringe direction. I cant see any evidence of experience in air crash investigation or even an open mind on the subject. They clearly had a bias and political agenda before they started. Perhaps the stuff is better of on a page about Polish politics or Russian-Polish relations, certainly not relevant to an aircraft accident. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"They clearly had a bias and political agenda before they started" ??? - What do you base the accusations on or who do you mean "the three individuals" ? Please point out any political past or links to politics in previous activities of eg. prof. Binienda or dr Nowaczyk or dr Szuladzinski or Michael Baden or dr Wacław Berczynski. They are the experts of the parliamentary group and WingManFA2s didn't mention any details about them, he presented some opinions of others. Voyt13 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne raises an interesting point. If none of these experts has first hand experience of air crash investigation, their chances of being taken seriously in an international forum would be slim.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is improbable that anyone, and I mean anyone in the world would seriously consider your opinion while weighted against the expertise of someone whose body of work was essential in discerning the cause of the Challenger disaster (Binienda), or someone whose books are a cornerstone of materials sciences and explosives analysis (Szeludzinski), or someone whose work has been pivotal in designing number of Boeing platforms currently in use allover the world (Berczynski), or someone who is the man-to-go-to when it comes to the terrorist investigations (Kushner), and others. Voyt13, please be aware that Ian, Miborne, and couple of others here, have been "guarding" this article since day one and will be disparaging anything and anyone who questions the official Moscow's view of this "accident" till the cows come home. So, please be judicious how much time you want to waste on responding to obvious silly spins such as this one … With love from the Home of the Brave, --WingManFA2 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Binienda participated in the investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and was awarded by NASA [3] . Dr Szuladzinski deals with mechanics of breakdown of structures and belongs to Australian National Security Researchers Directory. And what is the experience of air crash investigations of experts of Polish government's committee? None. Voyt13 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Milborne and I are going to be well paid for covering up The Truth™. To repeat, both the Russian and Polish government reports accepted that this was an accident caused by CFIT. See also WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to avoid personal attacks or not-so sophisticated irony. Try to concentrate on arguments and facts. IanMacM, I assume your good intentions so I guess you are just confusing facts and people. You are not so familiar with the matter because you didn't read the sources. Voyt13 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only area that I would significantly challenge is that Russian soldiers "finished off" the wounded. This is well into WP:REDFLAG territory, as Section 1.14 of the official report says that the plane crash produced forces in excess of 100G, leading to multiple injuries and killing everyone on board the plane instantly. Even a non-expert can look at the crash site and see that the crash was non-survivable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that Binienda had any real contribution to the NASA investigation, his name doesnt appear in the report. Szuladzinski an expert on the effects of explosions, no agenda with him then. Kazimierz Nowaczyk appears to be a professor of stuff to do with biochemistry and biology and the University of Maryland School of Medicine but nothing related to aviation or aircrashes. Bit off-track now but if you were to have an independent investigation where is the expert on CRM, somebody with experience of Russian aviation particularly military ATC and approach techniques, where is the expert on Russian-built aircraft crashes, nope cant see any which is why you have national investigation agencies that can call on all these types of experts. Suggest we prune the Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe section as I suggested earlier which would remove the need for the NPOV flag and close this topic down. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, the investigation of the parliamentary group is still in progress so I suggest we wait for the final report which will be published by the end of 2012. Voyt13 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About that list of experts above. You and Voyt13 were previously talking about "irrefutable science" and "laws of mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, materials' sciences, and others". You do realize that "Putin is a KGB monster who eats babies, so of course he blew up the plane" coming from a self-styled "authority on terrorism" is not hard science, don't you? I also hope that you understand that this page here is not a place for investigations or research, so asking anyone around here to prove someone wrong or posting links to videos and texts for analysis is not very helpful for discussion.
I don't make any claims regarding the findings of this investigation or put my reputation on the line (I'm trying to say that the origin of my IP is irrelevant), but I eagerly want to see reputable and independent organizations that do! Let me stress it - organizations themselves, and not their members. So far, it seems that none has even shown any interest in this investigation. And that is the problem here that your list doesn't address.93.80.137.44 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation and scientific research concerns only the plane crash. It is not about how much psychopathic murderer Putin is (That was the matter Politkovskaya or Litvinenko dealt with). I'm glad you would like to establish an independent international investigation, so if you are a U.S. citizen, please sing up the petition or join one of the organizations demanding that. Voyt13 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Polish political posturing & removed POV Tag

Is it time again for weird conspiracy theories and political smear campaigns?? Even the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik told the conspiracy weirdos to present proof or shut up [4]. Besides saying the Russians bombed the plane, Macierewicz also wants to prove that Donald Tusk, Radoslaw Sikorski, Bogdan Klich, Jerzy Miller and Tomasz Arabski “intentionally and deliberately committed a number of offences to the detriment of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs”, which he believes led to the tragedy on 10 April 2010; furthermore he claims that the Russian "жизненные рефлекси" (vital reflexes) actually means "signs of life" thus proving people survived the crash [5]; his expert admits that he only analysed the pictures taken just after the air crash and thus came to his conclusion this was a bomb [6], the "scientists" will meet actually for the first time in October 2012, my favorite weirdo sentence from Macierewicz is: "And if we scrutinise the report and focus only on the suggested irregularities in the 26 Air Forces Regiment, the blame sits firmly with the Donald Tusk cabinet." [7]. This all is nothing but some political blame game - wikipedia is not involved in Polish political debates - especially ones that are based on flimsy evidence, hearsay, conspiracy theories, and just plain lying (see bishop Józef Michalik for that quote)... More proof that this is junk, fringe: [8], or this gem "the members of the committee were more or less in the middle of their work." followed by "also presented the main conclusions reached during the work." [9] - so in the middle of the work the conclusions are already established??? Serious work there in the Polish parliament... especially as the experts want to be anonymous... and that the "The decision concerning the landing was political and came from Moscow, which should be clearly said. " [10] or this political crap: the military prosecutors wanted to talk to Binienda, who refused and instead invited them to interview him at a session of the committee in parliament, which the prosecutors declined to visit (as it would be a political spectacle). [11] and have a look at this gem: "Antoni Macierewicz also stressed that while investigating the Smolensk air crash, the Polish officials "were acting according to Putin's decree."... because this is all part of the Russian war against Poland! [12]. Therefore a) POV tag removed b) section deleted. c) Discussion hereby ended. noclador (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are fundamental problems with your arbitrary deletion:
(1) Your sources - You will be hard-pressed to convince anyone, even on Wiki, that the views of two communist snitches "Zephyr" and "Mikhailov" (see below) supersede academic credibility of notable scientists affiliated with credible universities, Boening, NASA, and others. Once again, the Polish Parliament is not a fringe organization. It is an official body of the Polish Government. What you are bringing forth are views expressed by two noted communist secret police informers
Per Wiki's own articles:
(a) Michalik: Links with Polish secret police, the SB
On February 15, 2007 Michalik, in an interview with Polish TV, Polish Press Agency PAP, IAR and the IAC has reported that the Church Historical Commission on the basis of materials established by the Institute of National Remembrance IPN found that during the years 1975 to 1978 he was registered as an agent of the Communist secret police (SB) codenamed "Zephyr"
b) Ciril: Links with the KGB
In the early 1990s and later on, Kirill was accused of having links to the KGB during much of the Soviet period, as were many members of the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy, and of pursuing the state’s interests before those of the Church.[27][28][29][30][31][32] His alleged KGB agent’s codename was "Mikhailov".
(2) This article heavily relays on sources that by all accounts are clearly identified as propaganda centers. See various earlier objections that thus far have not been addressed.
Please do not vandalize this article any further. Both the discussion and the POV tag are hereby reintroduced. --WingManFA2 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly agree! This deletion was clearly unwarranted. --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
patriarch Kirill??? I did not mention him! Bishop Michalik is in 1 of the sources! ALL the others are comments by Macierewicz or news about his commission. Your claim "This article heavily relays on sources that by all accounts are clearly identified as propaganda centers" - please prove that the Polish government, the Russian government, the Polish press, the EU, the Western governments, the Western press, the Polish Episcopal Conference are indeed "propaganda centers"! If you can not provide sources to back up you accusation, well... Bishop Michalik has some opinion about that. noclador (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


User noclador you are involved in unethical and arbitrary deletions of other users' contributions, including my edits. You need to brush up how Wiki works, because what you have done is plain and simple vandalism! This is not how Wiki works! --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cool your jets noclador. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean you have a right to vandalize this or other articles. The Doomed is right. You need to brash up on how to behave in a collegial environment. A break form Wiki would be good for you. --DrJacPhD (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the charges are completely misguided because the section doesn't contain anything that could be considered as a "political game" of Macierewicz or anyone else, even if such a game exists. It doesn't even contain any of the accusations of political responsibility of Polish Government, etc. The section is mostly about scientific researches made by experts, who are NOT anonymous:
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
Voyt13 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polish parliamentary investigation/break

What we have here Voyt13 is a situation that appears to require an arbitration. Thus far, I have been accused of being YOU, Robert, and just about anybody else, as long as it suits the agenda of the POV zelots who prefer to maintain this article in its present, "science-fiction" form. My edits, your edits, and edits of other editors have been removed. Dare I say, were vandalized? Under the present circumstances, and reluctantly, I am beginning to feel that Wikipedia, as it is, is not a reliable source of information. In fact, after this nonsense, it certainly is NOT "encyclopedic" by any stretch of imagination.--WingManFA2 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you've got arbitration, or, at least, the active oversight now of an administrator. I have barred editing to the page for a week to allow you people to form consensus on the talkpage. Stop using emotive language and flinging insults. The question at the moment, it seems from the edit history, is whether the Polish Parliamentary investigation should be included in the article.
Let me give you my personal opinion: it seems unlikely to me that the theory in the parliamentary investigation is factually based; there are far too many uncertainties in air crashes, and the computer modelling could have produced unreliable data for all kinds of reasons. However, that does not mean the Polish Parliamentary investigation is not WP:NOTABLE. It may be a fringe theory, but it represents the strongly held views, no doubt, of many Poles who may be distrustful of their eastern neighbour. Therefore, my personal view is that the seemingly well-referenced Polish Parliamentary section should remain. Let's not insult the intelligence of our readers by denying them even the knowledge that the Polish Parliament investigated the matter: let's trust them to decide individually whether what the Parliamentary investigation was true. I would also recommend that a discussion thread be created at WT:POLAND and/or WT:AVIATION. Please do not hesitate to contact me via my talkpage. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to User:Voyt13. I feel that you came with a specific POV to edit this article. Therefore I would suggest to please have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would like to point out why I came to this conclusion by listing some of your edits:
Besides I would like to point out some of your other edits:
usually such claims: "mostly censored in the mainstream media", "black PR", etc. point to a Wikipedia:Fringe theory and creating theories based on flimsy ideas like "indistinct voices", "interpreted as" point also in the direction of a fringe theory. The same bias is found in the statements by the head of the committee Macierewicz, which does indicate that at least Macierewicz is highly biased. So all this combined makes the investigation look like an politically motivated attempt to give credence to a fringe theory. I agree with user:Buckshot06 that the committee is WP:NOTABLE, however as it is now the section describes the findings of the committee as facts and omits any information about the reaction/feelings of the Polish public to the committee, the government and ruling party opinion/reaction to the committee, the Polish press views of the committee, etc. With such sensational findings that are presented as facts I assume that there would be a lot of debate about the committees findings in Poland and also in the international press. But there seems to be none... which makes us come back full circle to Wikipedia:Fringe theory. noclador (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has his own views. Here, on the talk page, in some of my posts I adapted to the level of discussion presented by the users I responded to. And then, the statement could include a POV. But in the Article, in the section I created, there are only pure facts, no POV. Regards, Voyt13 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voyt13, indeed, you have presented the facts of the Parliamentary investigation. The committee did say such-and-such a thing. But encyclopedic articles need to be *balanced*. In your personal opinion, how likely do you think that the version propounded by the Parliamentary investigation is true? Or is it more reflective of Polish mistrust of Russia? Poland has ample grounds to be mistrustful, but that should not mean we distort the true likelihood of what actually happened in this particular aircraft incident. Do you not think, in order to improve the balance of the article, some mainstream Polish newspaper stories/analysis discussing the Parliamentary investigation should be added? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The function of this, or for this matter, any other article purporting to be encyclopedic, should be to present the facts, as they are seen by the experts and were reported by the media. When I say media, I mean all media, and not only the type of media that this, or the other editor likes. Voyt13 has done exactly that, and it is neither appropriate, nor warranted to ask him what IS, or what ISN'T "true". No such burden has to be met here - particularly in the light of less-than-objective portrayal of the "reality" in this article. Simply put, he doesn't have to "prove" anything. He presented a body of reputable scientific research conducted by well-regarded experts, and properly cited it. It is not for you, or me, or for anyone else to indulge in the censorship, and to treat Wiki's visitors as if they were idiots - no matter how noble the intent. You noted that in your post - and I believe you were genuine when you said that. The "true likelihood of what actually happened in this particular aircraft incident" remains a mystery, was subject to countless spins, misrepresentations, and outright lies since day one. Voyt13 touched upon some of these, and but appropriately, didn't editorialize them. He simply enumerated the facts as they were reported. Personally, I'll take what someone like Binienda, or Szeludzinski, and other independent experts (holding doctorates in their respective fields) have said, long before I'll give any credence to what the RT (a reputed loudmouth of the Putin's propaganda), or the "experts in nothing" of the Jerzy Miller's ilk, or others, had thus far fabricated. And, Voyt13, thank you for your valuable contributions. --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deliberately avoiding one simple fact. It's not about RT, it's not about Miller, it's not about Binienda and whatshisname. It's about the whole freaking world. Vlad the Psycho blows up an airplane full of high ranking officials of not the most insignificant country on Earth, and no one gives a damn, except a few far-right american specialists in political warfare. Like, how is that possible? Where's the outrage? Pussy Riot got sentenced to 2 years, and Russia got loads of shit poured on her. Polish president gets blown up, and even FoxNews remains silent. Unthinkable. How do you explain that? 89.178.33.231 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
89.178.33.231, I told everybody to stop using emotive language and flinging insults. The mainstream view is that this incident was an accident. Stay on-topic, do not use this page as a forum post area, and remain focused on fixing the way we as Wikipedians wish to portray this incident. Mr Warren, I appreciate your concerns, but there is a *reason* we have the guideline WP:FRINGE, and this situation needs to be interpreted in line with that guideline:
"A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea"
At present, I am not seeing any genuine intention of discussion to improve the article, rather more hurling of accusations. Stay on topic everybody, and focus on producing some compromise wording, or I believe this article will have to remain locked down for a longer period. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the material added here is that it is way too long and has issues with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The Polish and Russian governments were broadly agreed on the cause of the crash, and this new investigation is the usual grassy knoll stuff by dissenters. The Polish parliamentary investigation is worth mentioning, but fairly briefly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: Robert Warren: a) [13] violates WP:Civility b) [14] please refrain from WP:Sock and c) your claim: the "experts in nothing" of the Jerzy Miller's ilk: a bit of expertise the 34 investigators have. The full report in English can be found at: [15] d) and if one wants to see how serious one can take Binienda - there is enlightening section in his Polish wikipedia article pl:Wiesław Binienda ([16]). e) and User:Voyt13 is a 1 topic editor on the Polish wiki too [17]. Wikipedia is not meant to help propagate a fringe theory. noclador (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim that the Polish side had no access to the Black Box: page 60 of the final report:
  • Crash protetcted flight data recorder MŁP-14-5: "Data from this recorder were readout on 11.04.2010 in Moscow in the seat of the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) at the presence of Polish specialists and a Polish military prosecutor."
  • Cassette recorder KBN-1-1: "Readout of the data from this recorder was carried out on 14.04.2010 in Moscow, in the seat of MAK, at the presence of Polish specialists and a Polish military prosecutor."
  • Quick Access Recorder ATM-QAR/R128ENC: "On 20.04.2010, the data from the memory of the cassette were readout in the Air Force Institute of Technology in Warsaw, in the presence of representative of MAK, the Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation in National Aviation (henceforth Committee), Polish Prosecutor‘s Office and the manufacturer‘s of ATM-QAR representative. The all data were retrieved."
  • Voice recorder MARS-BM: "Reading of the data from this recorder was carried out on 11.04.2010, in Moscow, in the seat of MAK, at the presence of Polish specialists. The data were copied and secured by representatives of Polish prosecutor‘s office in MAK‘s headquarters."
maybe you want to read the official report, before making claims that are contradicted by the official report. noclador (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following are some of Binienda's "fringe" credentials. Machine language translation:

"Collaborates with NASA conducting leading research grants funded by NASA [11]. Led by the Gas Turbine Testing Facility, built in 2005-2006 [21], has been conducting research on the components of turbines and engines for the United States Air Force, NASA and private industry [22] (companies General Electric, Honeywell and Williams International [10]). In 2008, it installed the so-called lab. has gas, entirely funded by the NASA Glenn Research Center, used by the team Wieslaw Biniendy testing of composite materials subjected to collisions with objects moving at high speed [23]. Participated in the study disaster space shuttle "Columbia" [24] [25], but it is not listed among those participating in the study in the official report drawn up after the disaster. [26] NASA collaborated with the turbofan engine design called the GEnx, which is used in Boeing 787 Dreamliner [11], and is co-author of a new composite material with a special woven carbon fiber used to build the GEnx engine [27]."

So, pun intended: "'Houston, we have a problem" … because, neither is this guy "fringe", nor are the others, and neither are their findings. You can't marginalize "facts" (read: numbers that at least are adding up) just because they didn't originate from the sources liked by SOME editors. Mind you, all of this was reported by the reputable media outlets in Poland, United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The aforementioned findings were also subject of an intense peer-review, and prevailed. Similarly, one would hope that the European Parliament, or the Polish Parliament, or the Polish Parliamentary Group, are as notable as are the other sources cited in this article. The Wiki readers are NOT STUPID, and I find the motives guiding some of the editors here puzzling - to say the least. As far as the length of the said section of the article is concerned, my personal feeling is that compared to the lengthy diatribes about a lot of nothing, the Voyt13's contribution constitutes only a small portion of an overall article length, and should stay as is. The sources are prominent enough, the findings are documented, and are properly annotated. --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Roberts and Voyt13 claims about the quality of the experts (see above and [18]) "Prof. Binienda participated in the investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster", 6 volumes, over 3,000 pages, but Binienda isn't mentioned anywhere [19]. "Binienda was awarded by NASA [20]", the university of Akron got an award as part of a team of 15 companies/institution/universities... and NASA gave out 18 more awards that day [21]. And this Australian National Security Researchers Directory is the phone book of Defense related scientists in Australia [22],... now aside from exaggerating the NASA connection: Binienda is an expert on turbines and engines... not airplanes, not airplane wings, not airplane crashes, not airplane materials, not airplane impact studies or anything else related to the crash in Smolensk. None of the engines failed, so what can bring Binienda to the investigation??? Let's not say Binienda is fringe - but you have to admit that his area of expertise is not connected with the crash. Secondly you say that "subject of an intense peer-review, and prevailed."... well, all the sources I can find say Binienda refused to allow a peer-review! "Binienda nigdy nie opublikował danych, jakie wprowadził do komputera tworząc słynną symulację." ("Binienda never published data, which introduced the famous computer simulation form.") and that is from Newsweek Poland! Maybe you wanna read the Newsweek article - it debunks your claim of peer-review completely [23]. As does this letter by a Polish professor from University of Toronto: "Dodam, że moje publicznie zadawane profesorowi Biniendzie pytania, ważne dla wyjaśnienia działania jego modelu, pozostają od wielu miesięcy bez odpowiedzi." ("I would add that my professor asked Biniendzie public questions, important for clarification of his model, many months remain unanswered.") [24]. As for your claims that all this was reported in media in "Poland, United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain" - show us the links!! noclador (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Binienda's simulation is "famous", as you say yourself, then how can you suggest that his findings are insignificant, and strangely enough, suggest that what he brought to the table is not sufficiently notable to be part of this article? The Szeludzinski guy, is considered to be among the best experts in the world in the things that go poof, or explode, if you will. I am having considerable problem with following your logic here, as I am sure, are others. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the University of Toronto professor you mention is an astrophysicist. Right? So, he is kind a Milky Way, or star-gazing kinda dude, right? So, what does he bring to the table then? Binienda's stated qualifications on the other hand, are in all-things-aircraft, and if I remember correctly (maybe someone can dig it up for the benefit of the rest of us) presented his findings to an international body not to long ago. Right? They didn't run him out. Did they? Do you remember that? Apparently, Binienda specializes in "testing of composite materials subjected to collisions with objects moving at high speed", and then he designs aircraft engines. Another one of these independent experts apparently designed some Boeing planes, that fly allover the world. Right? The claim to fame of one of your Miller's experts is that they can apparently hear voices. Do you remember that?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smolensk_air_disaster&oldid=511311777"