Forty indications of the fabrication* at the ‘Severny’ (Part 1)

Source and Copyright:
http://www.zestawienia.salon24.pl/320305,1-40-przeslanek-inscenizacji-na-siewiernym

This note is regularly updated
40 leads that indicate a fabrication at the ‘Severny’ Airport
(based on the analysis of photos available from the ‘Severny’ and on the available witness’ accounts):

THE CRASHSTAGE
5. The fact that among the representatives of the Polish Embassy [in Moscow] awaiting for the President - about 800 meters away from the epicenter – no one could hear the impact of a 90-tonne craft hitting the ground (ie weighing as much as approx. 90 cars).
6. No sign of any distinct crater left after the collapse of a 90-tonne craft – despite the muddy terrain this should be clearly visible.
7. No explicit destruction of the forest by the falling aircraft or its fragments.
8. No fire of the [jet] fuel (12-13 tonnes according to the MAK transcripts!).
9. No sign of any unburned fuel at the crash site.
10. The fact of extinguishing the fires barely by just a few people, some smoking in the immediate vicinity of the wreckage.
11. Radically different witness accounts on the fuel smell - from the "no detectable fuel after the crash" (S. Wisniewski) to "strong smell of fuel" (G. Kwasniewski).
12. The fact that the engines after the crash were not hot and the vegetation around them bore no signs of burn.
13. No part of the wreck appeared scorched.
14. The fact that the parts being extinguished were not hot - the firefighters moved freely over them.
15. The fact that the parts being ‘extinguished’ did not produce any vapour, which should occur at a large temperature difference between the scattered parts and the environment.
16. The fact that the aircraft engines weighing over 2 tonnes and heated during flight to several hundred degrees, did not cause a fire of dry grasses in the clearing.
17. No sign of fire outbreaks on the satellite images over the "crash site" on the 10th of April - while the presence of such fire outbreaks precisely in this area on April the 9^th, which may suggest that the film by SW [S. Wisniewski] was shot on the 9^th and not on April the 10^th.
18. In the photos, visible variation of the profile and geo-physical conditions of the crash site: "disappearing walls", the area once muddy and then covered by dry grass.
19. Birdsong (clearly audible finch) in the movies presented as filmed immediately after the incident: footage by Mr. S. Wisniewski (named on the Russian television as Mr. Sliwinski) and in the “Kolya film”- the impact of 90 tonnes, and the associated rumble should have scared the birds.
20. Presence of a sling (special rope used in aerial drops) in "Kolya’s film".
21. Presence of a section of chain over the tail of the wreck (a possible remnant of the sling fixture used in an aerial drop).
22. No known aerial photographs of the 'crash site'.

 

27. No images (as in the Miller Commission Report) that would document the development of the situation over time - from the time of the crash to the transportation of all the bodies. Members of the Miller Commission confirmed at a meeting with the [victims’] families on July 29, 2011, that they saw no bodies at the scene, because when they arrived there in the evening of April 10^th 2010, the bodies were already gone.
28. No [preserved] logging records of mobile phones, from which connections were established from the aircraft, at times "close" to the time of the “catastrophe”.
29. Not enough chairs prepared for the expected delegation at the cemetery in Katyn – there were only some 48 chairs with umbrellas.

THE WRECK
30. Incompleteness of the wreckage, visible in the photographs of the scene.
30a. No [images of the] cockpit.
30b. [Visible contradiction:] a "hollow" hull (as if it was left after the suggested by the ZP [Parliamentarian Taskforce (of the opposition)] explosion in the aircraft) however with its windows (the weakest part of the hull) undamaged which after an explosion should also be crushed.31. The presence of rust and even clean cuts on the wreck parts.
32. The absence of dents on the parts of the wreck.
33. The absence of any staining of the wreck by the oil/liquid from broken pipes.34. Visible in the photos evenly cut tree branches, lying underneath fragments of the wreck.
35. A relatively small range of the scatter of the wreckage - that area all enclosed, fenced at all ends, next to the plant processing airplane scraps.
36. Visible in the [official] photos differences in the location or presence of particular parts of the plane: fragments of the plane "changing location" or suddenly appearing.37. TU154M 101 had a distinctive patch of varnish on the aileron - that exact part of the wreck was cut out preventing an identification of the hoax – while the tail assembly positioned as the wreckage in Smolensk is not a part of the Tupolev 101 model. This has been outlined by comparison of images made by the blogger “154”. 

 

AFTER THE EVENT
38. The inability to determine the course of events around the Smolensk after the “catastrophe” (time of stay of witnesses - diplomats and others at the airport and at the cemetery, the lack of any footage, photographic and video of the Orthodox and the Catholic Mass and then of their return way by train to Poland).
39. Difficulty to establish the course of events after the crash, in Poland ([of assumed] Polish special-service personnel meeting with the liaison officer of the [Russian] FSB, contradictory accounts on the monitoring of the flight, the time of taking over the [administrative] control [well] in advance to the identification of the body of the President Lech Kaczynski.

 

A. Not available - records of audio conversations in the cockpit;
B. No synchronization of recordings of each data channel, according to the shorthand notes (the TAWS signals of the third channel stop at some point but are still recorded on the first and second channel);
C. Signs of editing of audio recording in the stream fragments available on the network;
D. Probable disinformation about leaving the TAWS system turned on ([note that] Capt. Protasiuk had turned off TAWS during his [earlier] flight on April 7, because the airport was not included in the database system - hence it is likely that he did the same April 10).
E.In spite of the research carried out by forensic experts, neither public analysis nor a logical explanation ) has been provided of the so called "Kolya Film - 1.24" (qualified as footage of events shortly after the crash at the airport in Smolensk.
(‘PiSMaker’: 
http://bws.salon24.pl/421543,zbrodnia-na-polsce-w-smolensku#comment_6193018 

more:
http://smolensk2010.cba.pl/dziwna_katastrofa/goscinne_skrzydlo/

 1.
http://freeyourmind.salon24.pl/311912,gdzie-jest-dyrygent-z-okecia  
http://freeyourmind.salon24.pl/307440,okecie10kwietnia  http://niemcy.salon24.pl/307800,tajemnicze-miejsca-okecie-i-sewerny-glossa-do-fyma  
http://zestawienia.salon24.pl/320462,2-minuta-po-minucie-poranek-10-kwietnia
2.
http://zestawienia.salon24.pl/327217,16-kto-nadzorowal-lot-do-smolenska-strona-polska
3.
http://www.rp.pl/artykul/544614.html   http://www.zestawienia.salon24.pl/320462,2-minuta-po-minucie-poranek-10-kwietnia  (wpis dot. godz. 8)   
http://freeyourmind.salon24.pl/318847,witebsk-i-inne-lotniska-zapasowe
4.
http://eurybiades.salon24.pl/211095,smolensk-prawdziwa-godzina-katastrofy#comment_2993116     http://zestawienia.salon24.pl/326475,13-okecie-o-ktorej-wystartowaly-samoloty  http://centralaantykomunizmu.blogspot.com/2011/04/konsultacje-z-fsb.html
4a.
http://zestawienia.salon24.pl/327069,15-nad-siewiernym-nie-bylo-tu154m-101  
http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-06-11-predkosc-lotu-i-stenogramy.html

4b.
http://freeyourmind.salon24.pl/335895,witebsk-minsk#comment_4874713
http://freeyourmind.salon24.pl/335895,witebsk-minsk#comment_4873345  
http://freeyourmind.salon24.pl/335895,witebsk-minsk#comment_4873397