Was the April 10, 2010 Crash An Assassination? An Inverview with Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, PhD, and Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, PhD.

It appears that the results presented by you gentlemen [during the European Parliament hearing] are a breakthrough in the Smolensk Crash investigation. Of course, everyone had waited for this breakthrough for a long time. I would like to ask if the results of the investigation conducted by you gentlemen, are in any way, binding to Polish government institutions conducting their own investigation?

Dr. Wiesław Binienda:

I am of the opinion that our findings presented in the European Parliament are indeed a breakthrough. We worked very long to explain what, in the end, had caused the crash of the Polish Government’s TU-154. At first, after conclusively proving that the famous birch tree didn’t cause it, for a long time we were not able to ascertain what did [cause the crash] if it wasn’t the birch? Now, because of the contributions of Dr. Szuladziński, a renowned explosives’ expert in Australia, we were able to make headway. According to his analysis, there was an explosion on board [of the presidential Tupolev TU-154M]. Based on the results that were made public, and were available from MAK and the Miller Commission reports, he reached the conclusion that that there were two explosions prior to aircraft contact with the ground. This conclusion is of great significance, because a great number of planes that crash on the ground, indeed, explode because of the fuel they carry on board. However, if an explosion takes place in the air, it indicates involvement of a third party. As such, it is a terrorist act. In my opinion, it is a breakthrough conclusion.

However, responding to your question if our conclusions are of any value to the [Donald Tusk’s lead] Polish government, the prosecutor’s office, or the individuals conducting this investigation – I am unable to answer that. I believe that [ what we have ascertained ] should be taken under consideration. In every normal country, international experts are respected, recognized, and their opinions are taken under consideration. I was surprised to learn that Professor Michael Baden, a world-renowned forensic pathologist, was not allowed to take part in the autopsies alongside Polish experts of two of the crash victims that took place last week. Hence, I am unable to answer your question - because if such an individual as Michael Baden, who has no emotional attachment to the Smolensk crash, and is an independent expert who views it only in terms of truth or lack-thereof, is not allowed to take part in the autopsies, then … under such circumstances, it is difficult to expect that our findings will be taken under consideration by those who presently direct the course of the investigation.

Dr. Binienda, do you then, see the possibility of internationalizing this investigation? Who then, would lead such an investigation? Who would conduct it? What sort of investigative body, and commenced by whom, would be established to explain this crash?

There are many experts and institutions whose responsibilities are exactly such investigations. All that is needed is good will. What is needed is an acknowledgment that in this case, there are many, many more questions than answers. Furthermore, these types of questions should not be met with intimidation of those who dare to ask them, or be met with ridicule by newspapers, such as Gazeta Wyborcza. It has to be, at last, openly said that this investigation was not conducted in accordance with well-established, international standards. I know no one, regardless of their political affiliations, who would say that even a minimum of internationally established investigative standards were applied here. Under such circumstances, only political good will would facilitate that a body of credible experts, acceptable by all parties, would be called upon to carry out this investigation. Dr. Michael Baden, for example, could be one such expert. Only such experts could independently and transparently investigate this matter and determine what really happened. Only then, could we all accept the results of such an investigative body to be honest and credible in the end.

Even if it was a terrorist act, there are courts whose duties are to find the guilty and adjudicate them lawfully. [I believe] that all parties are in agreement that in the 21-st century, such matters should be resolved by the courts and not by armies, or war, as it is being done by Mr. Minister [of Foreign Affairs of Poland, Radoslaw “Radek”] Sikorski, who is intentionally frightening people with war. This is not the right way. The right way is to ascertain the truth and bringing those responsible before a lawful and independent judiciary. Mr. Professor, I would like to ask a few questions about the background of your investigation. We know that even the official Polish [government] representatives had access to only very few pieces of evidence. Did you have access to the same type of evidence that the Miller Commission had access to? Were you able to gather additional evidence? We used publically known facts, and available photos, and information. The difference between the Miller Commission and us is that we spent a lot of time conducting actual scientific analysis. Not only did we employ computer simulations meeting the highest world standards, and took under consideration physical behavior and materials’ sciences, but we didn’t indulge in speculations as it was done by the experts gathered by Mr. Minister Miller. I state, that that group of experts did not conduct such an analysis, because beginning with September 8th, to this day, none of Mr. Miller’s experts produced any [scientific] evidence.
		Above: Dr. Michael Baden, PhD. Why was the world's best known forensic pathologist turned away by the Donald Tusk's-lead Polish government? Watch the daming interview below ...

Not only didn’t they have access to the black boxes, or the wreckage – just like we didn’t – but also, they didn’t conduct any scientific studies and / or analysis. What they really have at their disposal is the element of omnipresent propaganda, used to bring people in line with their aims, and arrogance, with its simple-minded precept: “if something hits something, it is bound to break”. I believe, that slowly, but surely, the majority of Poles, and not only Poles, but also the world community at large, is beginning to realize (particularly while viewing my computer simulations), that the fact that something hit something, didn’t necessarily have to break it – pun intended. What had happened then? - one must ask. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to have access to all the evidence left in Russia. The Russians have neither the right to withhold the wreckage, nor to keep the black boxes hostage – all of this evidence should be transferred to the ICAO or to NTSB. It is exactly these two organizations that the Russians will have to surrender all the crash evidence to.

You touched upon a very important issue, hence one more follow up question. Sections of the wreckage were being destroyed, and some of the pieces were stolen. The wreckage has been subjected to the elements for almost two years. If these were to be returned, and you were able to analyze it today, [because of the time that had lapsed] would it still be of any investigative value? Or, as the chief of the Polish Commission, Mr. Miller, claims himself, it [ the wreckage ] will bring nothing new to the table?

Mr. Miller is not an expert in this field. In fact, he isn’t an expert in any field. Therefore, I leave his opinions to the politicians. Based on what I know, however, the materials retain in their “memory” evidence of disfigurement or being severed as a result of dynamic forces. Therefore, we can, even today, analyze these materials and ascertain what caused them to be torn to pieces. It is similar in the context of the remains of the victims. Mr. Michael Baden stated that it is necessary to conduct autopsies of all the crash victims, as even many years after their deaths, the analysis of their skeletal remains will bring many answers regarding the reasons for their deaths. Of course, the more time passes, the more difficult some of the answers will be. I hope however, that all Poles, regardless of their political affiliations, believe that we have a right to a transparent investigation conducted by a credible international commission – a commission consisting of someone like Dr. Baden – rather than avoiding the questions that each and every thinking individual should be asking.

Thank you for the time you took to answer our questions.

An Interview with Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, PhD

Good morning Professor [Nowaczyk]. According to what was said by Dr. Binienda, that you are ready to formulate your theory that [ the Smolensk crash ] was no accident, bur rather as indicated by all evidence, a terrorist act. Are you indeed confirming this shocking theory?

Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk:

This hypothesis was initially presented by Dr. Szuladziński, PhD. For the first time, it connects the very mysterious and difficult to explain the log 38 of the TAWS 38 system that was registered [by the on-board data capture devices], as it is very specific and very different from all other alarms, with the place where the aircraft fell to the ground, and the manner in which the wreckage sections were scattered. [Please see Dr. Nowaczyk’s presentation here].

This is the first time that we have more or less coalesced an explanation of this phenomenon. It, in fact, is confirmed not only with the findings of Dr. Binienda, but also my own calculations of the aircraft’s horizontal trajectory and the likelihood or lack thereof of a barrel roll (an aircraft’s rotation on its longitudinal axis) and a subsequent roll to the left. [Dr. Szuladzinski’s] findings at last gather and conclusively bind together this theory, as these are the findings of a very knowledgeable expert in this subject matter. Dr. Szuladzinski’s firm had conducted many such analyses; many similar reports of this type, and it is credible beyond reproach. Otherwise, it would have never survived in this market.

What will become of your research from this point on? Will you continue? If so, what type of expertise do you gentlemen think necessary to be conducted in the light of the results of your studies?

At all times we were and still are very vocal in our desire to establish an international commission, access to the wreckage and the autopsies of all victims […]

This interview was conducted by Paweł Kowalczyk

www.warszawskiPiS.pl

Translated by Jola D.

Polish Text: Zamach? Nasz wywiad z prof. Biniendą i dr Nowaczykiem