The Russian side accuses the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Force of being present in the cockpit at the time of the crash and having alcohol in his blood. The comments about the alcohol in the blood of the top general of the Republic of Poland that are not supported by adequate evidence (see: Footnote 6) are of disparaging character, especially when disclosed by the IAC for the first time as the key evidence of the Polish guilt at the press conference announcing the results of the IAC investigation.
R. R. Yesayan as a member of the technical team for the investigation of the Smolensk Crash stated publically that the Tu-154M airplane was equipped for idiots. 
Findings of the Polish Parliamentary Committee for the Investigation of the Smolensk Crash
According to the IAC Final Report, “the aircraft collided with the birch with a trunk diameter of 30–40 cm, which led to the left outer wing portion of about 6.5 m ripped off and intensive left bank. In 5–6 more seconds, inverted, the aircraft collided with the ground and was destroyed.”  Accordingly, the encounter with the birch that resulted in the loss of a part of the wing caused the plane to invert and crash. This scenario was illustrated by an animation demonstrating IAC's interpretation of the last moments of the airplane before the crash. This animation was not supported by any scientific or forensic analysis of the crash scene, but rather represented a work of art contrary to basic law of physics.
On September 8, 2011, Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, an authority on high-energy impacts on materials and structures testifying before the Polish Parliamentary Committee, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision with the birch could not have ripped the outer portion of the wing from the aircraft. While applying all parameters presented in the IAC Final Report in a rigorous finite element analysis, he demonstrated through a virtual experiment that the high- energy impact causes the wing to act like an ax, cutting the birch with only a small amount of damage to the edge of the wing but without any damage to the lifting area of the wing.  These findings directly challenged the scenario presented by the IAC.
However, even if the scenario presented by the IAC is assumed whereby the birch rips off 1/3 of the length of the wing at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground, the ripped-off portion of the wing could not have fallen as far as 111 meters from the birch where it was found. The aerodynamic simulation shows that the ripped off part would crash to the ground no further than 12 meters from the birch at velocity of 100 km/h. The inspection of the crash scene showed that the ripped off portion of the left wing was found leaning against the trees 111 meters from the birch and on the right side of the path of the airplane. The observed damage to the trees and to the ripped off segment of the wing excludes the possibility of a velocity of 100 km/h at the point of impact.
In order to explain the final location of the ripped off segment of the wing, the aerodynamic analysis of free flow of the segment was conducted, requiring that the landing spot of the segment corresponds with the location at which it was found.  The results obtained indicated that the separation from the wing at velocity of 80 m/s happened at a distance of 70 meters from the birch and 26 meters from the ground. Thus, the aerodynamic analysis demonstrates that the IAC's assumed path of 6.5 meters above the ground was 20 meters too low and the location of the separation of the wing was off by 70 meters.
Furthermore, the IAC's conclusion that the airplane traveling at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground could overturn is also impossible because the span of the wing is 19 meters. After presumably losing 6.5 meters on the birch, the remaining 12.5 meters of the wing was still longer than the distance to the ground of 6.5 meters. Thus, the IAC conclusion that “after intensive left bank” the airplane “inverted” is obviously impossible and erroneous.
So, possibly in anticipation of this problem, the IAC version of the crash assumes that the airplane after losing 1/3 of the wing is gaining height. This scenario also poses a fundamental problem because after losing a significant part of the wing, the airplane would be unable to gain any height. Accordingly the scenario presented by the IAC is incorrect in all fundamental aspects, and thus, impossible.
The Russian Federation violated Article 5.1 of the Chicago Convention that provides: 'State of Occurrence shall use every means to facilitate the investigation' and Article 5.2 that establishes the responsibility of the state conducting the investigation. Furthermore, the Russian Federation violated the rights of the Accredited Representative of Poland pursuant to Articles 5.24 and 5.25, the rights of Poland as the state having suffered fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens pursuant to Article 5.27, and the responsibility of the state conducting the investigation in preparation of the final report under Article 6.1. In conducting the investigation, the Russian Federation violated the rules and procedures of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention and the ICAO Investigation Manual. The Polish Prosecutor General was not granted access to evidence in violation of Article 5.2 of the Chicago Convention.
Except for minor corrections, the Russian Federation ignored the Polish Response to the draft IAC Final Report. The wreckage of the Polish Governmental Airplane Tu-154M and the black boxes remain in the possession of the Russian Federation. In light of all the above, it is imperative that the international community muster the will to form an impartial international commission for the investigation of the Smolensk Crash.
Appendix 1: Destruction of Evidence
Photos Taken at the Scene of the Smolensk Crash on April 11, 2010 
Also see: "Russian Image Management, Making Unpleasant Historical Truths About Poland Disappear: The KGB's latest intelligence coup, and NATO's latest intelligence disaster" by retired Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Senior Scientific Intelligence Officer, S. Eugene (Gene) Poteat.
Above: Polish Government TU-154M crash site in Smolensk, Russia.
 Ścios, Zbrodnia Smoleńska, p. 73.
 Findings No. 3.1.69 and 3.1.70, IAC Final Report, English translation, p. 180.
 Wieslaw Binienda, „Czy brzoza w Smoleńsku mogła złamać skrzydło Tu-154M 10 kwietnia 2010 roku?” as posted on November 7, 2011 at http://mdabrowski.salon24.pl/340718,prezentacja-ekspertow-przed-zespolem-parlamentarnym-08-09- 2011.
 The analysis was based on solid-fluid interaction and high velocity aerodynamic drag laws of physics.
 Photos from "Misja Specjalna" by Anita Gargas.
Home | About Doomed Soldiers | FAQ | Contact Us | Search | SiteMap | Polish Translation | Introduction | Dictionary of Terms | Torture Methods | About Jozef Kuras | In Search of Kuras's Remains | UB Murders | Volunteer For Auschwitz | Wiarusy | Baran Forests Murders | Liquidation of "Bartek's" Unit | The Augustow Roundup | Lt. "Mlot" Interview | A. Kiszka Interview | AK-WiN Counterintelligence | Propaganda An Anti-Semitism | Polish Secret Police | History Books | History Websites | Administrative Units | Law | Prisons | Executions | Surkonty Battle | Surkonty Battle pt. 2 | Stalin's Secret Order | National Armed Forces Introduction | Enemies & Allies | Occupiers | Lies by Omission | Living And Suriving As Partisan | Memoirs of Szkot | Freedom Independence |