Listy z Sosnowca do Wichity

PIERWSZY LIST

Dear Gentlemen,

We have read the statement by doctor Gerardo Olivares "It is impossible that the Tupolev door would be torn out of the door frames and dug into the ground, or rather underground, without a huge additional energy."
We are not experts in aircraft construction but with such deformation and tearing of the fuselage it seems quite normal that door locks do not withstand stresses and vibrations. The lack of some door locks was the reason that the pressure inside the fuselage of the plane caused the breakdown of the others and two planes were disasters.

In turn, impacting the door into the ground has direct references to everyday experiences. One effortlessly drive a spade into the ground by pressing it with his foot. The door was in front of the wing center section and under it, because the plane had already been rotated. Thus, the -wing center section - the most heavy, most solid part of the aircraft most probably pressed the door into the ground. On the wreck site, the wing center section was almost the furthest from the fragments of the plane, so probably sliding into the ground or crushing many other fragments of the plane, which were constructively before and under it.

We are awaiting with interest the publication of the results of your research. Will the measurements made in Poland be confronted with the state of the wreck in Smolensk. According to Dr. W.Berczyński from 2016, T. Anodina, in response to his letter, invited Polish researchers to Russia. This invitation should be used because, apart from the wreck inspection, it might be possible to take samples for mechanical examination.

Maria Jaworska
Signatory of the First Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2012, professor of chemistry
Michał Jaworski
Speaker of the First Smolens Conference,  Warsaw 2012 - a physicist released from the university under martial law

DRUGI NAPISANY POD WRAŻENIEM WSPOŁNYCH WYSTĘPÓW Z BINIENDĄ

Dear Sirs,

Although - to my surprise - I did not receive any reply to the previous letter, let me share with you further comments. In the media materials Dr. Olivares says that the Tu-154 "is almost “built like a tank" there are "huge excesses of elements". This is simply not true. About the "solidity" or "excess" is evidenced by the ratio of empty weigt to MTOW of Tupolew comapred with such a indicators  for other aircraft designs from those times, eg B727 and Hawker Trident.

​

From this list it can be seen that Tupolew is by no means a redundant or more overinginwered design - the "Empty / MTOW" indicator for all of the constructions is almost the same. I completed the table with more modern aircraft. You can see that modern designs have this indicator almost identical. I think that Mr. Olivares, wanting to meet the expectations of the journalist talking to him, gave an answer that  is very misleading. It should be corrected in the care of the reputation of his institution.

I do not even dare assume that you are performing measurements in order to confirm the thickness of the spars used by dr.W.Binienda in his simulations of a collision with a birch tree, i.e. 12 mm in region of a collision with a birch tree..

This could be inferred from the statement of Dr. Binienda appearing in the same program, who may be one with whom you are typicaly in contact. He claims that the spars are the thickest elements, while at the collision site their thickness is close to the thickness of the coatings. The Polish subtitles in the picture mean: "Thickness of the real spar in Tu154 - 12 mm", "Angle of Atack 14" In reality, Dr. Binienda never knew what Angle of Attack is. On visualisations of all his simulations, Pitch Angle is equal to Climbing Angle and it is called Angle of Attack.

Generally, your task, although you probably do not realize it, is to save the skin of Dr. Binienda, who for years either demonstrated incompetence or directly cheated.

This is a fragment of a complaint The Polish National Broadcasting Council to translated into English and published by his wife:

2:46 - 3:00 Jaworski - "... you can not do this unconsciously, it's not even manipulation, it is simply a fraud."

(...)

"So, TVN24 seeks to discredit Prof. Binienda by accent him Ghard = 0, this is not a mistake at all. To the contrary. This is the central and most important premise of the scientific method used by Prof. Binienda. The extreme view of the birch tree. Extreme view of the birch tree.
- The first analyzed model is "basic," which refers to a linear material model, or material with an elastic behavior. This model applies to dry wood.
The second analyzed model is extremely non-linear - that is - the plastic behavior that comes into contact with the wing. This applies to a wet tree. "

This is another scam because in the materials of the First Smolensk Conference, dr. Binienda wrote: "Even for an angle of attack of 14 degrees in a horizontal flight situation, the bearing surface of the wing is not damaged because there is no contact between the lower part of the tree and the underside of the wing.
Inertia of the bent tip of the lower part of the tree accelerated to the speed of the plane causes a deep deflection of the trunk during the passage over the rest of the wing.
The trunk returns to the vertical position only after the aircraft's departure.
The exact simulation of this case is available in the full presentation [8]. "
The second sentence describes a perfectly plastic birch (Ghard = 0) with insignificant internal friction. Such a birch will never straighten itself.
The third sentence describes an elastic birch (Ghagrd must be near 1). The bottom part of such a tree will contact the bottom of the wing all the time. This case is close to reality.

In the fourth sentence it is clearly written that we are dealing with one case.

If you measure the thickness of structural elements in the wing, first of all a much less laborious simulation of wing and birch collision should be made with the actual thickness of elements - almost entirely - including the hull - obtained long ago from the manufacturer.

Both "sides of the conflict" are important in reconstructing the destruction of the self-made collision. From the statements known to me, it does not follow that attempts are made to determine with which trees the airplane or its fragments in the wreckage area collided. It is known from satellite images that it was a partially wooded area. In addition, the actual shape of the terrain seems to be impossible to reproduce. The absence of this crucial question - what is it the plane was a actualy striking - may suggest the assumption that it did not collide with anything but broke up as a result of the explosion or that hit a flat terrain..

So you can go in the direction of clearly imbalance in the fidelity of recreating the properties of the colliding objects - a super-fine plane and practically unknown terrain - as, for example, Dr. Binienda's simulations, in which this balance was preserved in a specific way - four times thicker spar collided with the play-doh birch.

Regards
Michał Jaworski

PS.This letter is hereby released from the secret of correspondence, pleas feel free to discus it with you coworkers and others.

IIPS. In my opinion, you are being convinced by your Polish interlocutors - A.Macierewicz, W.Binienda, K, Nowaczyk and journalists symaptyzing with them - that they are pro-American Polish patriots and their adversaries are pro-Russian remains after communism cooperating in hiding the truth about the bomb attack performed with the use of numerous bombs mounted throughout the aircraft. Apart from the bombs, which the Polish prosecutor's office knows from various expert opinions that they did not exist, such a clear political division allowed your Polish collaborators to create pseudo-science as an alternative to that well-describing hammering a shovel into the ground with the help of a foot and much more complicated natural and technical phenomena. Quoting Professor M. Czachor - one of the first Polish scientists engaged in independent scientific research of the technical aspects of this tragic catastrophe: "But in the same way it could be proved that to drive a shovel one has to throw it into the ground like a javelin. You can even make a simulation on a supercomputer, probably reaching some surprising results"