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 173.210.233.156 (talk) at 23:01, 22 December 2012 (→Assassination Theory: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Further dozens of scientists confirm the hypothesis of explosions, formulated by the Parliamentary Group

During the Smolensk Conference Prof. Piotr Witakowski has said that the current findings show that the Smolensk air crash was accompanied by an explosion.

A precise analysis of the documented air crashes from the last approximately 30 years shows that in the vast majority of the cases, when the plane hit the ground, it had damaged big areas of forests before and parts of the plane had never been scattered over such a large area as it was in Smolensk.

In Prof. Witakowski's view, according to the current findings what is the most probable is the hypothesis of an explosion of the plane in the air. In Prof. Witakowski's opinion, the Smolensk air crash is an accident accompanied by an explosion and hitting the ground was the result of earlier disintegration of the plane into fragments.

Witakowski's findings have been confirmed by Prof. Chris Ciszewski from the University of Georgia, who in his speech carried out a comparative analysis of the satellite photos of the venue of the air crash and analysed changes in the photos taken one after another. The expert came to a conclusion that the scatter of the remains of the plane was not in accordance with the expectations in the case of hitting and that it rather suggested an explosion preceding the collision. Moreover, the analysis of the satellite photos show that the appearance of the venue of the air crash as well as the location of the remains kept changing as a result of a manipulation.

While analysing the way in which a small fragment of the TU-154 M number 101 was destroyed, Prof. Jan Obrebki from the Warsaw Technical University said that what had been the cause of the air crash must have been a multipoint explosion.

http://freepl.info/3158-scientists-smolensk-air-crash-was-accompanied-explosion
The program and the participants of the Smolensk Conference:
http://www.konferencja.home.pl/Program_Oct162012.pdf
http://www.konferencja.home.pl/Aktualnosci-1a.pdf
Some of the new presentations, by:
Marek Dabrowski
Gregory Szuladzinski
Michal Jaworski
Wieslaw Binienda
Voyt13 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a good example of starting with a cause and working backwards to make it fit rather than the scientific approach of examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion, all points to WP:FRINGE. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Smolensk Conference, from the Polish version of the article:
On 22 and 23 October 2012, in Warsaw, at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, held a conference aimed at providing a forum for the presentation of interdisciplinary research on the mechanics of flight and destruction of the Tu-154M. It was attended by more than 100 professors from Polish and foreign technical universities. The composition of the organizing committee of the conference were Professors Peter Witakowski (Chairman), Andrew Wisniewski (Vice-Chairman), Paul Staszewski (Treasurer), Jerzy Urbanowicz (Secretary), Chris Cieszewski (foreign relations) and Dr. Ing. Wojciech Bilinski (editorial matter). Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the conference was Professor. Tadeusz Kaczorek, vice chairman prof. Jacek Ronda, members of the presidium Kazimierz Flaga, Robert Gałązka, Lucjan Piela and Peter Witakowski, honorary members: professors Janusz Turowski and John Weglarz .

One of the aims of the conference was an attempt to comply with the so-called the inverse problem, ie to determine the position and speed of the aircraft pieces at the time of defragmentation based on the technical documentation of the aircraft and photographic documentation of the wreckage pieces and their location at the crash site.

The participant, prof. Peter Witakowski of the Academy of Mining and Metallurgy in Krakow, in his paper presented photos of the accident, which can be compared with the disaster in Smolensk, saying that the fall of the aircraft on the "roof" in any case would not be so destructive to the machine. He pointed out that in such cases, the machine does not break up into many parts, and passengers have a good chance of survival. The scientist said that the current state of research points to an explosion of the aircraft in the air and falling to the ground occurred after the defragmentation of the plane. He stated that photos showing the wreckage of the Tu-154M lying at the airport in Smolensk points to that the Tupolev did not hit the ground, and was destroyed by the forces acting from inside the hull. In his opinion, the findings of the MAK and Miller are unreliable .

The findings of Witakowski were confirmed by prof. Chris Cieszewski from the University of Georgia. He analyzed the destruction of trees and a series of successive satellite images of the site. In his speech, he made a comparative analysis of these images and tracked changes sequentially captured images. The expert concluded that the scattering wreckage was not in line with expectations as the event of a collision, but rather suggests the occurrence of an explosion prior to the collision. In addition, the analysis of satellite images shows that the appearance of the scene of the accident and the location of the remains has changed over time as a result of manipulation.

Prof. Jan Obrębski Warsaw University of Technology, said that on the basis of the destruction of a small piece of the Tu-154M number. 101 as well as a large fragment of the shell detached, torn rivets and irregular shapes and jagged edges, states that the cause of the crash must have been multi-point explosion inside the machine.

Prof. Jacek Gieras from the University of Technology in Bydgoszcz pointed to deficiencies in the documentation to indicate that so far has not been any serious analysis of the electrical components, including generators, electric motors and cables of Tupolev. The expert pointed out that after the crash only the bulbs highlighting cockpit were tested.

Dr. Gregory Szuladziński, an expert of the parliamentary committee, argued that if there was a collision, the wing of the plane as stronger than birch tree, would cut the tree and not vice versa. Proved that damage of the hull of Tu-154 could be caused by relatively small amount of explosives. In his opinion, an explosion in the hull is the only logical explanation for the disaster. He argued that the evidence is such number of fragments, their location, as well as the "split of hull" .

Dr. Eng. John Blaszczyk, a retired employee of the Military University of Technology, said that he analyzed the strength of the wing of Tupolev and came to similar conclusions as prof. Wieslaw Binienda and Gregory Szuladziński that birch could not break the wing.

Prof. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, University of Maryland, another expert of the parliamentary group, said that even the data presented in the reports of MAK and Miller's committee shows that the plane flew over the birch.

Prof. Wieslaw Binienda from the University of Akron, the expert parliamentary group, presented the Tupolev flight simulations using specialized programs. He said that the lack of damage to the front edge of the wing, his place being wrenched off and the position of the birch in the direction perpendicular to the flight of aircraft indicate that there has been no collision of the machine with the birch, and the internal destruction of the wings and pulled rivets could be a result of the explosion. Also, the open walls on the outside of the hull show that it could be caused by an explosion inside the machine, as if there was no explosion, the rear part of the fuselage and the right wing should be in full. In his opinion, if there was an explosion, most of the passengers in the back and middle of the plane should survive.

Dr. Wacław Berczyński, designer of Boeing Military-Space Division reported that the damage occurred in the hull, the rear of the aircraft was rejected at high pressure, the wing was destroyed as a result of the enormous pressure inside the wing. Voyt13 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR - you are welcome to make a proposal to improve the article but repeating the same stuff at great length is getting to the point of being disruptive. Plenty of forums and blogs for this sort of speculation but this is an encyclopedia which is not the same thing. So unless anybody has a firm proposal to make to improve the article then the subject is closed, thanks for your contributions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, the current section on the parliamentary group has to be changed, as it is now full of smear anti-Polish propaganda, pushing a strong POV by citing some absurd one-sided opinions (like "hysteric and bungler" by Sikorski... Why not to write that actually Sikorski is "hysteric and bungler", isn't he? We have refs for that, too: [1] . Do we have to go into that political disputes in Poland or rather present results of scientific researches?). Voyt13 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets insert instead your anti-Russian smear propaganda, by citing some absurd one-sided opinions to push a strong POV! The right forum for conspiracy theories are forums; not an encyclopedia. And as wikipedia definitely doesn't want to wade into internal Polish political smear campaigns we shall not mention this smear campaign in this article; but maybe we should add information about it in this article. noclador (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are the hundreds of professors of technical sciences from all over the world members of the Law and Justice party? Or maybe they are bribed by it? Aren't you creating some conspiracy theories? Voyt13 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no hundreds of professors from all over the world. For some reason (ahem), the polish version of the article incorrectly quotes its source. "ponad 100 profesorów z polskich i zagranicznych uczelni technicznych" vs "Ponad 100 polskich profesorów z uczelni technicznych". Maybe you should fix that, Voyt13? 95.28.222.145 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any contradiction there. They are scientists from universities from various countries, not only from Poland. Voyt13 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see an enormous quantity of contradictions, irregularities, and highly inplausible and/or massively coincidental assumptions in this "theory" alleging a massive conspiracy that push it well into WP:FRINGE territory. It's not going to get covered in the detail you desire in this article for those reasons; this is the WP:CONSENSUS that has emerged from these discussions. I strongly suggest, if you wish to have information on this dissenting investigation to be included at all, to formulate a brief section on it. I strongly suggest reading TWA Flight 800#Alternative theories for an example of the length and tone that would be expected of such a section. N419BH 01:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I see how you substituted "scientists from universities from various countries" with "professors from all over the world". I'm sorry, but the latter sounds like there are British, American, French, German etc. scientists who support the theory. But that is not the case. All these professors, even though some of them work and live outside Poland, are still Poles. Every last of them is a patriotic Pole, which is really not that far from being a member of PiS. 95.28.222.145 (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The participants of the Smolensk Conference are, indeed, Poles of origin. However, eg. Binienda has presented his findings on ASCE "Earth and Space Conference" in Pasadena, CA with the participation of 204 scientists from 13 countries, including: USA, Australia, Canada, England, France, Netherlands, Germany, Korea, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia. (None of them had any objection to the researches and methodology except one who left during the presentation - he was from Russia). The official site of the Earth and Space Conference . Besides, saying that they are "Polish scientists living outside of Poland" is like saying (let me bring up an unusual comparison) "Ben Bernanke is a Jewish central banker living outside of Israel". Does it make any sense?
That other conference is dedicated to all sorts of things and Binienda was just one of the speakers. Given how innocently his presentation was titled, I wonder how many of the attenders really knew what is it exactly the were going to see. Most importantly, it seems that giving such presentation is Mr. Binienda's favourite pastime, so considering everyone who can sit quietly through his presentation a supporter of his theory is a bit of a stretch. Again, no one confirms anything until he partakes in an investigation and puts his sign under the final report. And I could say "scientists of Polish descent", what would that change? 95.25.61.120 (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The next issue about being fringe or not - the problem is, inter alia, in defining what is "mainstream media". In fact, the group of "Gazeta Polska" (with portal "niezalezna.pl") providing all these information about Smolensk is ranked as the third most influential media in Poland. Voyt13 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course. I would fully expect an investigation by Polish politicians to receive coverage in mainstream Polish media. Disagreement is natural in politics. The various 9/11 conspiracy theories and the various TWA Flight 800 alternative theories and the Moon landing conspiracy theories have all been covered in mainstream media as well. That doesn't make them of greater credence or credibility, it simply means covering them was warranted. N419BH 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During the Smolensk Conference, there was a presentation by prof. Jan Obrebski, describing the damage of a part of the wreck that has been delivered to Poland and analyzed by Obrebski. The piece had broken edges, pulled and twisted rivets.
- I firmly declare: an explosion. There’s no other way to explain it - said prof. John Obrębski ( Warsaw University of Technology ), opening the presentation.
The described fragment has a size of 40 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm, with the thickness of the sheets of 1.22mm. It is ragged and unfolded. The edges are clearly torn - which can be compared with a typical state of tearing steel in a testing machine.
As argued by Obrębski, the piece is a fairing of a bracket. - With high probability it can be said that it is a fragment of the front section of the cover fastened to the aerodynamic shell of wings or fuselage - he said. Another series of photos showed the rapprochement of torn rivet holes and the edges of the plates torn as a result of tensile forces.
- the presence of planted and riveted metal sheet inside the element is interesting - he said. He suggested that the element could be used to put an explosive charge in it during the repairs of the plane. (The plane was repaired before the crash in a facility in Samara, Russia owned by Oleg Deripaska. – editor’s note)
video from presentation
report on presentation
Voyt13 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. The Parliamentary group is putting forward a theory which lacks support from the Polish or Russian governments, and is not worth more than a brief mention in this article. It is not the job of this article to discuss every dot and comma of what the Parliamentary group said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didnt know that the government decides what is scientifically correct and what is not? Is that how it goes in your country? 100 scientists from the biggest Polish universities, from USA, Australia, Canada took part in a Smolensk Conference in October and they agreed that the cause of the crash can only be explained by an explosion. Is that understandable to people who write here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FitJock87 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traces of explosives (TNT and Nitroglycerin) on the wreck !!!

In the wreckage of the presidential Tu-154M in Smolensk prosecutors found traces of TNT and nitroglycerine - announces today the "Rzeczpospolita". Government spokesman said that this information "is appalling."

One and a half months ago a special group of pyrotechnists equipped with the latest technology to detect the tiniest traces of explosives went to the crash site.

Group of experts examined the wreck primarily on the seats and in the wings found numerous traces of TNT and nitroglycerine. These substances are the basic material for the construction of explosives.

Starting with the first sample, from the inside of the aircraft, the wing and the plating machines, gave positive results. Devices showed among other things that on up to 30 seats there are traces of TNT and nitroglycerine. These substances have also been found at the joint of the wing fuselage. There were so many that one of the devices exhausted scale.

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/katastrofa-smolenska/w-tu-154m-odkryto-slady-materialow-wybuchowych,1,5291329,wiadomosc.html
http://www.rp.pl/artykul/613504,947282-Trotyl-na-wraku-tupolewa.html
http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/lech-kaczynski-nie-zyje/news/rzeczpospolita-na-wraku-tupolewa-sa-slady-trotylu,1857602,6911
http://niezalezna.pl/34309-trotyl-na-wraku-tupolewa
http://niezalezna.pl/34322-nasz-news-slady-trotylu-na-cialach-ofiar Voyt13 (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they found TNT? well, that rules an explosion out. if TNT explodes it decomposes into either 3 N2 + 5 H2O + 7 CO + 7 C or 3 N2 + 5 H2 + 12 CO + 2 C. if there was TNT on the seats, then we know that the TNT did not explode. as for Nitroglycerin a) it is unstable b) a contact explosive and c) when detonated decomposes into 12 CO2 + 12 H2O + 5 N2 + 2 NO, making it clear that it did not explode too... basic science; noclador (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some experience with trace analysis of post-explosion residues says: Technical TNT and dynamite Danubit 2 have been used as real secondary explosives: at present they are the most frequently abused explosives on the territory of the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic.It has been shown that distilled water is a good medium for collecting the post-explosion traces of nitro compounds (TNT and DNT) in testing ground. Voyt13 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a similar explosive trace thingy as with the TWA Flight 800 case. UncleJester (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traces of explosives are exactly what you'd expect to find in a military transport aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do u find them traces on the wings and outside part of the plane aswell???--FitJock87 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useful BBC coverage here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists who wrote about explosives have been fired

The editor-in-chief of Rzeczpospolita, the reporter who wrote the story and two other employees have all been given the boot from Rzeczpospolita for publishing this inaccurate report. So we can now ignore this lies; but maybe we should include that Kaczyński has completely lost touch with reality and keeps on repeating the "explosives" theory... [2]. noclador (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The journalist was fired and that proves he must have written lies? Is that your logic? 1. US tests prove presence of trinitroluene! (with the document confirming) 2. Author of the article about trinitrotoluene on TU-154 supports his thesis , Gmyz: I would write more as I know more today, I don’t withdraw anything 3. Examinations proved the presence of trinitrotoluene . Maybe it’s rather noclador, not Kaczynski, who "has completely lost touch with reality"? Besides, opinions like that clearly show that noclador is engaged in the political dispute and therefore is pushing his POV (despite the fact it's not the place for such opinions). Voyt13 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what does it tell you if a stain of TNT has been found on a safety belt? UncleJester (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the story has since been dismissed by the authorities as untrue, it's a moot point. N419BH 22:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An analyze of a seat belt and a part of a blouse conducted by American scientist on the request of the family of one of the victims proved the presence of explosives on that material. Thats a clear proof and its important that it come from a neutral experts. Why it can't be included in this article?--FitJock87 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A witness in the Smolensk investigation, Remigiusz Mus, found dead, on 28 October 2012

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Let's move on from here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The police confirmed to niezalezna.pl portal that Ensign Remigiusz Mus, an on-board technician serving as a part of the crew of Yak-40, which landed in Smolensk on 10 April 2010, an hour before the Tu-154 crash, and a key witness whose testimonials contradicted official version of events in crash’s investigation, is dead.

Ensign Remigiusz Mus, who revealed that the Flight Controller from the Smolensk’s Airport gave to Jak-40 crew orders to descend to 50 metres above the ground, assured that the same command had been given to Tu-154 no. 101, as well as to the Russian Il-76, what completely contradicted Voice Cockpit Recorders transcripts.

Remigiusz Mus was one of the most important witnesses in the investigation concerning the Smolensk air crash. He heard the orders given from the tower in Smolensk and during an interrogation he spoke about 2 explosions taking place before the TU-154M engines stopped.

"Serial suicider" on the run again

Why Remigiusz Mus died

Did someone persuade Remigiusz Mus to commit suicide?

The case mentioned even in German “Westdeutsche Zeitung”: Absturz der Präsidentenmaschine lässt Polen nicht zur Ruhe kommen

That’s another victim of the "serial suicider", related to the Smolensk case. Some of the other mysterious deaths related:

Gregory Michniewicz – CEO of the prime minister Donald Tusk’s office. He hanged himself on 23 December 2009 on a cable of a vacuum cleaner, the date when TU-154 plane came back from repairs in Samara.

Christopher Knyż, the operator of "Fakty" on TVN, on April 10, 2010 was in Smolensk. He died in Moscow on June 2, 2010. Death completely concealed.

Prof. Marek Dulinicz, head of the archaeological group, died June 6, 2010 in a car accident while waiting for the trip to Smolensk.

Dr. Eugeniusz Wróbel, a professor at the Silesian University of Technology, a specialist in aircraft computer control systems, expressed doubts on the investigation on the crash in Smolensk. Officially, killed with a chainsaw on 16.10.2010 r, by his son, who removed traces of blood, carried cut corpse to the lake, went back and forgot everything. His "mental ill health" has not been noticed for over 20 years by his mother, who is a psychiatrist.

Dariusz Szpineta - professional pilot and instructor pilot, an expert and president of an airline company, was found dead in a bathroom during holiday in India. Previously, he spoke several times in the media on Smolensk, questioning the official finding.

General Slawomir Petelicki, former commander of the "Grom". Found dead June 16, 2012 year. Sharply criticized the findings of the Commission for Aircraft Accident Investigation and tardiness of the Polish government to explain the causes of the crash in Smolensk. He died as a result of gunshot wounds.

List of victims of the "serial suicider" Voyt13 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this page is related to improving the article and is not a forum for repeating fringe or made up conspiracy theories. If you keep adding this type of fringe forum stuff it may be seen as disruptive so please desist, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it time to start deleting these posts per WP:NOTAFORUM? N419BH 20:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe

One of the users changed the name of one of the sections from "Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe" to "Law and Justice investigation". I would like to ask the administrators to change it back to its previous name becouse the current one is incorrect. Law and Justice have not conducted any official investigation. The Parliamentary group is a -parliamentary- authority which can be formed according to the Polish Constitution and the Statute of Polish Parliament art. 17. Membership in this and other Parliamentary Groups is voluntary and open for members from all parliamentary parties. Please change it becouse its misleading for the readers. I would like to also ask to change that section entirely as in its current form it is merely just a bunch of negative opinions about the group itself and its members and experts expressed by some of the media and politics. During the Smolensk Conference in October, 100 academics from the biggest Polish universities, from USA, Australia, Canada and some other experts concluded that only an explosion can explain this catastrophe. Why are their findings ecluded from that section? Why there is no mention of the traces of explosive materials found by American scientists on the belt and part of one of the victim's blouse? That section in its current from is unacceptable. I hope for a substantive discussion about a new and encyclopedic form of that section.--FitJock87 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, other editors do not have to indulge you since, as far as I can tell, you're simply re-raising the same issues that have been rejected a number of times before. Please first re-read those prior discussions, then, if anything is still not answered, re-ask. One particular policy that is relevant here: Wikipedia is not supposed to cover every single viewpoint in great detail. If a particular viewpoint is only held by a small group of people, then we should mention it only briefly, in passing. And if the viewpoint is only held by an extremely small group, such that the position falls under WP:FRINGE, then we don't mention it at all. Finally, please do not try to argue about the actual "findings", or where explosives were found, or whatever. We don't argue about the actual facts of a debate here; all we do is figure out what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination Theory

What is the problem with at least pointing out the existence of the assassination theory?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smolensk_air_disaster&oldid=529354832"