Słowniczek smoleński w jęz.angielskim

Obrazek użytkownika Marek Dąbrowski

Poniżej zamieszczam pogrupowane tematycznie fragmenty dyskusji, którą z Michałem Jaworskim przeprowadziliśmy na portalu Cleveland.com. Naszymi adwersarzami byli prof. Paweł Artymowicz i John Kowalski, U.S.A. Zachęcam do zapoznania się z całym materiałem:


Niniejszy materiał zawiera poprawki redakcyjne i skróty w stosunku do oryginału.


The situation shown in official reports: according to them, the aircraft when in 65 to 90 deg. left Roll angle and with a lack of one aileron and left wingtip and with an hydraulic malfunction doesn't turn to the left during Roll, but flies straightforward. The Tu-154 pilots are absolutely sure, that it is IMPOSSIBLE. This was the reason for commisions to hide the last TAWS#38 readout, which shows that there wasn't turn when, according to MAK and Miller Commision, the aircraft was in deep left roll, with wings perpendicular to the ground. The most probable cause the Roll reading didn't reach the maximum was that the power was lost and the aircraft did hit the ground with angle no more than 90 degrees. But it's still examined. Why we assume that? No eyewitness (except one unnamed "witness" in MAK report, but this narrative must be treated very careful, because no one else has affirmed that) has seen the aircraft flying upside down. Many of them, who spoke to journalists, so it's no problem to check it- including Polish cameraman, S. Wiśniewski, saw the aircraft flying in deep, about 45 left Roll, crossing Kutuzov street, about one second before FMS was frozen and the aircraft hit the ground. Drivers on Kutuzov street violently hampered their cars, when Tupolev flew low, with left wing pointing down. But according to official reports, over Kutuzov street the aircraft was upside down- with Roll angle no less than 135 degrees.


The aircraft was perfectly configured to make a trial approach. The configuration of flaps shows, that they didn't want to land, and that configuration gave more "dynamics" during Go around because of less drag. Especially when making an automatic Go-around, when Tupolev behaves like a fighter and ascends very fast.


When approaching RSP+OSP (PAR+NDB) the minimum is 100m, not 120.


There is no sign of bad CRM in the cockpit, and the information, that the co-pilot was reading the proper altimeter, proved that cooperation in cockpit was good.


When parts of the aircraft fall from the sky, they destroy trees. And when the aircraft is out of control, at low level, it also cuts them. Part of the trees was destroyed with falling, high speed debris, as the whole aircraft wouldn't fit between them:


and they resemble forest bombarded by an artillery fire more, than being cut by wings of a jet:


As we can see, such look of some trees might be caused by explosion. The colour photo above is taken nearby the TAWS#38 location, in which an explosion may have occur. Marks on the trees were the base for the Commisions to "reconstruct" the trajectory, and the Comissions failed. Official data are ridiculous (see table 2, last column is calculated from KBWL LP Report data by a blogger, and shows speed of rotation in deg./sec.[kąt obrotu na sek.]):



The real point is, that trees around TAWS#38 alert point were (were, not are, because Russians removed them all) destroyed in a way which shows not the aircraft hit them, but it's debris. Also TAWS readout shows that aircraft was 12 m above treetops, where TAWS#38 occured and the parts fell from it. Even Commisions failed to describe flight there properly: Roll speeds, which were established from the cut angles on destroyed trees, are unphysical and impossible. And both Commisions ommited TAWS#38 readout, as it clearly shows the airplane was higher. All trees around the TAWS#38 point have been cut, and even the layer of earth under them was exchanged in summer of 2010. The evidence was destroyed by Russians. There are only some photos left. Please look how it looks on KBWL LP commision graph (localization of aircraft according to Commision- black, I've drawn on the graph it's localization according to TAWS#38 data- blue, in the same scale of course):



1- the torn wingtip has an extended slat, which wasn't cut or crushed, but was divided at the end of technological border of two slat sections (parts), what can be easily seen here:


One should note, that slat is extended closer to the fuselage than the torn off part of the wing- which means, that that part of aircraft didn't hit the tree, because the slat had to be destroyed, too. The most probable cause of breaking the wing but dividing the slat in another place are aerodynamical forces acting from downwards, not a hit. Therefore, if the wing did hit the tree, as You stated- it survived, an the birch should be broken apart; 2- neither the neighboring slat section end (marked by an red arrow) didn't hit the tree, what can be seen on an picture made after Russian investigators placed the parts of wreck together:


That means, that probable place of hitting the tree must be moved farther towards the fuselage than the cut line of torn-off wing. Did anyone see the destruction zone of primary wing construction spanning more than 1 meter out of the birch diameter? The slats survived, but primary beams behind are annihilated. 3-Also one of official reports stated that the place of hit to a tree was much closer to a fuselage than the line of tearing on broken the wing end. Commission oficially stated, that the aircraft did hit the birch by a place which was 10,8m away from it's centerline. It means, that a 3 METER WIDE PART OF WING STRUCTURE was destroyed by a tree 44-cm in diameter. I enclose an drawing, where the officialy report mentioned place of hit to a birch is marked by a red arrow and a yellow star, and the torn off end of wing is painted red. Anyone can see, that official version is ridicoluos and absurd. It's no explanation of destruction of so big area of the wing by tree, no matter how wide. It seems quite different with dr.Szuladzinski explosion scenario.


The rip-off line on the end of the wing should be close to parallel to the direction of motion, including yaw angle. So, the slat is extended in a way it should be destroyed first. To preserve both visible slat fragments, the aircraft should be in 12 deg. Yaw.


The left stabilizer, which walked itself (with a little help of Russians) several dozens of meters in the night of 11/12 April, what can be seen on sat photos (drawing by Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk):  


The Report should take into consideration their primary location, not changed. In MAK Report the position of stabilizer is falsified, because the last, not first location, was shown.


Neither the birch was examined for presence of micropieces of metal, nor the wing wasn't examined for the presence of pieces of wood. Generally, the birch wasn't examined at all, and, according to the press informations, Russian Persecutor's office didn't establish any link between the birch and the falloff of the wing. The lack of collision comes straightforward from the calculations, which were made based on TAWS, FMS and accelerations readouts, and it's most probable behaviour of the aircraft according to our knowledge for today. The other argument is that the front part of the wing in the place Commisions blame for collision isn't damaged the way we're forced to believe. Of course I take into consideration, that it's low probablity of aircraft hit the tree- but in such case the birch could be cut, what Professor Binienda showed. The problem is that the potential number of photographs doesn't adjudge, how these pieces have found themselves in the birch, because some parts of aircraft on the crash site were moved, and Reports say only about their changed location, not initial, which is a lie. Therefore: microtraces examinations protocols are still required. Since the investigation is on, we may comment some things (like the collision with the birch) only in category of probablity.


Some of the graphs were moved by MAK on timeline by WinArm software. It can be clearly seen on the Radio Altimeter readouts, which, according to Commisions, were done properly even when the aircraft was upside down. The Radio Altimeter readouts don't end when the antennas looked in the sky. It's absurd, but it shows that MAK MOVED SOME GRAPHS. It's out of question. (Exact readout from RW-5 may be done when Pitch is less than 30 degs., and Roll is less than 15 degrees.). A Russian MSRP FDR readout: it really gave less than 50 m as the final readout. But we also have Polish ATM QAR FDR, which last RAlt readout was 340,6 m:


Conclusion: as the Commisions say, Polish ATM QAR stopped recording about 1-2 seconds before the Russian MSRP did. Unfortunately, despite of this, we won't find value of 340,6 metres, which was recorded in Polish FDR, shown before the end of MAK RAlt graph, which was made based on Russian FDR and had data from the same source. (Both FDR-s use the same sorce data: the Radio Altimeter RA-5.) It means, that MAK MOVED AND CHANGED THE RADIO ALTIMETER GRAPH. Therefore, we assume also Roll graph is basically true, but moved in time. Testimonies of eyewitness' generally confirm it.


According to Polish Military Prosecutor, the power was off between 1 and 2 seconds before impacting the ground.

oprac. Marek Dąbrowski


The birch

The important detail is that long splinters in the birch trunk, such as were photographed at the crash site, are formed during a slow, static wood destruction , that even Prof. Artymowicz himself admits. However, the alleged collision took place at velocities comparable with a starting small firearms bullet.

It is visible on photos, that front edge (slot) of the wing is not disturbed and covers the fissure in the wing.

After supposed collision with the birch and loosing part of the wing the plane did not change the flight direcition on a distance about 150 m (to TAWS „landing”) – these facts cancel the „birch project”.

Sorry - you must read reports before starting in discussion - otherwise your writing is political - not technical and substantial.

Mr JK, let's concentrate on Table 1 in MAK report (page 84).

Why position 8.

"Fragments of the left wing in the tree trunk, H=5m; 856; -61. " one must consider as thrue

when position 33.

" Fragment of a left stabilizer with elevator; 522; -106." is FALSE.

We have photos from an idependent source to prove the latter, do you have some photos to prove the former?

Short & tersely.

You are repeating arguments formerly discredited on Polish forum S24.

Do you have some photos from an idepended source to prove "the birch project"?

All damaged trees are broken with aeroplanes?

What metod of trajectory reconstruction may be used when crash takes place on a desert or an ocean?

Short & tersely.

Two explosions

Scenario of two explosions is based on two registered parameters: vertical acceleration and roll angle, which in two exactly the same time moments, differing of 0.75 s (equivalent to 50m of flight ) have exhibited rapid peaks. Vertical acceleration peaks correspond to a force acting from above, roll angle peaks to left roll, which can be interpreted as explosions inside the fuselage at the central left side of it, or inside left part of the wing near the fuselage. Second of them may mean the beginning of in-flight airframe destruction caused by aerodynamical forces and preceding explosion.

The interpretation of the first peak as a result of collision with a tree is ridiculous, since the tree in such a case should hang above the plane and should have a few dozen times greater weight. Let's say once again: the direction of acceleration (and force, respectively) change is downwards, not upwards.

The second peak of vertical acceleration and roll angle cannot be ascribed to a collision with medium voltage line, since that line is at 80 m (not 50 m) distance from the place of first peak occurence,

Immediately after the second peak of the vertical acceleration the TAWS#38 landing alert appeared, which normally should appear when the left landing gear touches the ground. At that time the plane was 30m above the ground. This effect was probably caused by the main landing gear carriage inertia in time when a rapid force acting downward and the rapid roll of the left wing has been registered - the time of probable mid-air airframe collapse start.

It is not true that all recorders worked continuously – immediately after the second peak appearance and TAWS landing alert, a half-second space occurs where MAK considered parameters as missing or unreliable.

Prof. Artymowicz imputes a political phraseology to all statements he criticizes, which in fact is not present there. On the other hand, he is known from political journalism full of opinions about other people's competency without giving any reasoning.

A five-seconds ( between dashed vertical lines) fragments of vertical acceleration graphs from MAK report (upper one) and roll angle (lower one) with marked time of TAWS landing signal is here imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/wvr4.jpg/

Your writing about vibrations shows that you do not know how rapid changes in vertical acceleration and roll angle are represented on diagrams in the reports, similary as prof. Artymowicz. The bottom half of waveform occurs two times and is represented with two or more measurments. There are no measurments that may by assigned to upper half of waveform. This are not vibrations but two times occurence of rapid downward force impuls. The scale of registered peaks of acceleration – about 1g on the accelerator placed in the center of 50 t fuselage, about 17m far from the point of alleged collision , is absolutely not adequate to an effect of the wing collision with a tree.

They are registered simultaneously in roll angle too, about which you and prof. Artymowicz do not know. We are discusing about that:


not about politicaly motivated notion about crash.

I wrote "The bottom half of waveform occurs two times and is represented with two or more measurments. There are no measurments that may by assigned to upper half of waveform."


Because downward force was registered in two or more consecutive measurements, it is obvious, that upward force impuls related to collisions with trees must be registered, if exist.

Your comments are addressed to persons, who did not see diagrams in reports at all.

Next, you must show, that the scale of registerd peaks - about 1g- is adequate to collisions with ground structures- could you do it?!

The trajectory

Mr JK$ All

you are not right, acceleration readouts of the Tu154 data recorder can be used to calculate trajectory because they are used with readouts of height and other parameters registered by TAWS and FMS systems using the least squares method. It is a basic method used in data elaboration in technical science, if you dont know.

"means missing height cumulative" - interesting - why not compensative?


Several topics brought up by Prof. Artymowicz are based on false assumptions, or are incorrectly interpreted by him.

Additionally- there is no registered Roll angle, which could describe a half of a Barrell Roll- maximum registered Roll angle is 65 deg., while the FDR used in tupolev registers values to 82,5 degrees of Roll angle! Both of You, Gentlemen, are aware of this. So why, Mr J.K, You claim that a whole half of the Barrell Roll is registered? Show us the diagrams from official reports, please, or we shall do it.

There are no recorded parameters which could confirm the narrative of the official Reports- are they in MISSING DATA all?

JK ( John Kowalski from U.S.A. ? ) wrote "And let me correct you"- I don’t force You to use my formulas, but You forget, that there were “"glasnost & perestroika", and we aren’t oppressed to believe in truths coming out from a certain capital city.

Prof. Artymowicz wrote "My next chapter of the blog in a day or two will present a more detailed model. No mystery there, just differential equations explaining lots of completely independent data such as timing, ground and vertical track, including the start of the final destruction field and its orientation."

We are waiting impatiently, in hope, that solution of differential equations will be shown to our eyes sooner, than Your DYNAMIC calculations of the wing impacting a tree- which aren’t ready yet, Professor Artymowicz.

Mr John Kowalski from U.S.A.

On Polish forum S24 you delt mainly with lousy ciders and squezing out pimples. Here we get to know you as a person, who is competent to appraise other persons scientific qualification. Please, let us know, who is the person with such Renaisance horizons. We sign our names.

oprac. Michal Jaworski - DuckSoup





Ocena wpisu: 
Brak głosów


Zareklamowałam Pański wpis tu :


I tu :



Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła / Isten aldd meg a Magyart
"Urodziłem się w Polsce" - Złe Psy :

Podoba mi się!
Nie podoba mi się!



"Żeby być traktowanym jako duży europejski naród, trzeba chcieć nim być". L.Kaczyński




"Some of the graphs were moved by MAK on timeline by WinArm software."

Czy można oszacować wartość tego przesunięcia w czasie?


Podoba mi się!
Nie podoba mi się!



Obawiam się że Roll jest przesunięty inaczej, RW przesunięty i modyfikowany także inaczej. Na razie nie udało mi się w ogóle dopasować ścieżki RW do trajektorii, biorąc pod uwagę np. masyw leśny w TAWS#38. W RW ingerencje mogły być głębsze niż samo przesunięcie.


Podoba mi się!
Nie podoba mi się!

Marek Dąbrowski


No i jeszcze coś dla opornych po naszemu.

Podoba mi się!
Nie podoba mi się!