So maybe the Ilyushin Il-76 doesn't need any triggers at all to drops something exactly where it's needed. This video shows the view from inside of the cockpit and how low and slow a lowpass can get.
Breathtaking Ilyushin 76 Navigator Glass Nose View during Minsk LOW PASS!
Part of the reason for me thinking about a ground level trigger are the groove lines we see at the starting point of the drop areas, suggesting some sort of rope was trailing. And then we have the tree damage before the drop zone that could also indicate something trailing.
But thinking about it, it could be one of an number of things;
the trees were hit by plane pieces being dropped from the Il-76 as it flew over,
the Il-76 had equipment attached to its underbelly that could specifically shear any tree tops that got in the way,
trees in the flightpath of the drops were cut back ahead of time,
a helicopter crane was used in the proceeding days before the crash to move the larger parts of the plane into location, and it is this action that is responsible for the tree damage, not the Il-76 drop.
I think a mix of three and four are the most likely answers. But if you look at the re-examination report and want a laugh, this is their theory to explain the upended landing gears; rather than they just looked a bit iconic as a backdrop.
I think I want to tie up a few loose ends, what the official report basically puts forward as the reason for the crash:- In thick fog, whilst attempting a pass over the runway to see if landing was possible, (even though it was equipped with a ground detection warning system that would have sounded) the Tupolev TU 154m ventured too low to the ground, its wing hit a tree, the force sheared off the end section which then caused the plane to roll upside down even though it had a huge set of stabilisers. It then landed on its roof and hence why the catastrophic damage and no survivors.
Because this is quite frankly nonsense and you don't need a PHD to declare that, the opposing version differs slightly. But because the money they are awarded depends on them confirming the crash really did happen and 96 people really did die, rather than conceding the Russian military cut the plane up beforehand and arranged it in an aesthetically pleasing pattern, they retain the Scooby-Doo turn in the air but instead claim a bomb onboard caused the crash.
But heading back to the report regarding the fog, we can see visibility was 600m around the time of the accident which is said to have happened at 10:41:06. Interestingly enough, while Slawomir Wissniewski didn't know how long after the crash it took him to get to the crash location to film (did he have to put the batteries in his camera and find some blank tapes first?) he did know his hotel window was 300m away from the crash site as the crow flies...it's almost like he looked up the distance to check he would have been able to see the plane crashing if it was indeed as foggy as was officially reported.
Do we get the sense of the building tension as visibility deteriorates?
At 09:42 the deputy Chief of Military Unit 2135014 from the BSKP requested the weather station: “Weather, how long is the fog going to stay? Weather. Roger, let’s coordinate with Moscow the forecast that did not come true, I mean the fog, when is it going to finish?”
On the basis of the worsening weather the head of the weather station compiles and coordinated with the weather forecaster of Military Unit 21350 a storm warning No3 for Smolensk airdrome area for the period from 09:40 to 11:00 expected due to advection of humid air 8-10 points stratus 50-100 m, thick mist, waved fog, visibility 1000-1500m in fog 600- 1000m.
The storm warning was transmitted to the weather forecaster and dispatcher at 09:43.
At 09:50 the actual weather and storm warning were reported to the head of commandant’s office – chief of Military Unit 06755.
The regular weather observation was made by the meteorologist at 10:00.
10:00 wind 160°-2 m/sec, visibility 800 m, fog, visibility 10 points stratus 80 m, temperature + 2,0°, dewpoint +1,5°, humidity 96%, QFE 744,6 mm mercury, QNH 767,4 mm mercury. This actual weather was transmitted to the dispatcher by phone.
At 10:00 the forecast was transmitted to the head of the weather station of Smolensk "Severny" Airdrome. This clarified forecast was not transmitted by the head of the weather station to the ATC CATC and dispatcher.
At 10:05 the ATC CATC made a phone request to the meteorologist: “What are you giving out now?.. Well, is storm issued"?” The meteorologist replied: “Now 80 by 800 reporting... stormy weather”.
At 10:15 the head of the weather station informed the head of Military Unit 06755 that before 11:00 further improvement of the weather is dubious.
The analysis of the BSKP communications record revealed that the ATC group was constantly monitoring the actual visibility using their reference plot. After they were contacted by the crew of the Tu-154M the latter was informed twice that the actual visibility was 400 m.
At 10:23 the head of the weather station upon request of the ATC CATC made a phone request of the weather for Smolensk Southern Airdrome: 10 points stratus at 50 m, fog, visibility 500 m, wind 100° - 2 m/sec, temperature +2.0°.
After this the meteorologist made an irregular weather observation for 10:28: visibility 600 m, fog, clouds 10 points stratus at 60 m.
Irregular complete weather observation (test measurement) of the actual weather after the
accident was not conducted.
The regular weather observation was made at 11:00. At 11:00: wind 120°-2 m/sec, visibility 600 m, fog, visibility 10 points, stratus at 60 m, temperature +1,8°, dewpoint +1,3°, humidity 96%, QFE 744,8 mm mercury, QNH 767, 6 mm mercury.
An irregular weather forecast was made by the head of the weather station at 11:38. At 11:38: visibility 500m, fog, clouds 10 points stratus 50m.
The regular weather observation was made at 12:00. At 12:00: 130°-3 m/sec, visibility 500 m, fog, clouds 10 points stratus at 50 m, temperature 1,8°, dewpoint 1,5°, QNH 745 mm mercury, humidity 98%, QFE 767, 8 mm mercury.
At 12:15 an irregular weather observation was made due to dispersing fog and its turning into mist. At 12:15: visibility 1200 m, mist, clouds 10 points stratus at 100 m.
— Pages 47-48, AIR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
From what I understand, a pilot programs his flight plan into the onboard system, and basically the auto-pilot then has the destination airport particulars on database, the location and elevation, and any peculiarities regarding the terrain in the airports approach, because its not like nobody has flown there before, and the point is to make flying safe. Fog doesn't suddenly make the expected terrain change, yet we are to believe the Tupolev TU 154m in order to hit a tree that apparently then caused its crash, had to drop below the actual elevation of the airport runway. Do we think it is possible the auto-pilot would just allow the pilot to make that manoeuvre seconds before the landing without giving some sort of warning, since the plane is now technically flying below ground level?
Here's the cartoon claiming it as fact.
And here's the broken tree and wing tip. Case closed.
And as it continues on its doomed path, it does a cookie cutter through another set of trees. Remind you of anything?
This is the layout of the wreckage, the Tupolev's right side mostly scattered to the left of the debris field and its left side more to the right, and hence why the final report has the plane doing a roll in the air metres from the ground before crashing.
You'll notice the stabiliser section isn't highlighted red, but it was found in three section, one perched against a tree filmed by Slawomir Wissniewski and pictured earlier. So it is accounted for, but this is not the case for the cockpit. From page 81 of the final report:
The forward fuselage with the cockpit was totally destroyed. A fragment of the nose with nose gear strut was at 397 m from the runway threshold. The upper and side skin panels were destroyed. The nose landing gear was in extended position.
I think this is a tell because, we can take it for some reason the Tupolev TU 154m 101 was retired from service, it might be as simple as Poland joining the EU and the government agreeing to replace its Russian manufactured vehicle stock with a European variant. We can assume Russia purchased the 101 back off the Polish government, or maybe it was always on lease. Anyway, what would the Russians do? I would suggest cannibalise everything useful from the 101, and because they don't want to let the cat out of the bag, the crash scenario they choose has to include a totally destroyed cockpit to hide the missing items, and hence the upside-down narrative. Because if it just bellyflopped into the woods, this would be the expected destruction pattern.
boeing 727 Crash test desert.gif (2.1 MiB) Viewed 7379 times
And I spotted something interesting in the background of the cockpit image, isn't that a car tyre? I wonder how that got there. Surely an odd thing to see in the debris of a plane crash?
I think I've just about wrapped this up regarding the crash site, the more I think about it, we have two areas where there is crash debris, the location where the Tupolev is allegedly in the air hitting trees and the location the Tupolev allegedly hits the ground. It's stated the Tupolev TU 154m had a ground detection warning system, but more to the point, the elevation of the destination airport would have been programmed into the onboard computer at the start of the flight, so the height calculation for the route would never have the Tupolev flying at a lower altitude than the actual airport it was due to land at. It's nonsense, fog or no fog. But it does give me an excuse to get this cartoon back up.
We can see from above, each picture of the plane represents the point at which it allegedly struck trees, the number, the metre height the damage occurred, so therefore the plane's height in the air. The first hit just shaved a bit off the tops of the trees, no damage to the Tupolev; the second impact is where the Tupolev lost its left wing tip and starts into its roll; the third hit it flies through a group of trees making the cookie cutter shapes and the diagonal slice. At this point it would appear to cross the road and is nearly upside-down; it hits the following tree just before impacting the ground.
And then below is one of the grooves that can be seen in the aerial image.
I fancy instead of being something like the vertical stabiliser scraping across the ground, it was created by a weight on a rope like the following being dropped out of the Ilyushin Il-76 as it passed to pull out its payload.
Ilyushin Il-76 drop.gif (6.85 MiB) Viewed 7351 times
I began this post stating there are two locations with regards to crash debris; I would suggest in the area where the Tupolev apparently hit the trees, which is public ground, this was likely staged at ground level in the days leading up to the crash. I think it very unlikely they would risk anything falling from the sky onto someone who might be out walking their dog. And if we remember, in Chris Cieszewski's conclusions about the snow like objects that were in the location of the stricken plane days before the crash, there is a reference that confirms the Russian military were conduction activity within the area during the timeframe.
It is only when we get to the ground which is part of the military aerodrome, therefore not public land, do we see the probable dropping of something on the day of the crash, probably smaller plane parts in a mix of soil/mud, and this might have been staged to showcase what an exact tool the Ilyushin Il-76 is.
If we go back to the Slawomir Wissniewski interview from two weeks after the crash, he was asked if he was the first person at the crash site, and he answered, "Yes. Then the fire department came." but we know this isn't the case. He might have been first with a group of people, but he wasn't first alone. I'm wondering, because he's a film editor and he seems to have no problem allowing other people to use him as the source of the Andrei Mendierej video, whether he is the source of his claimed video in the same way, which means he wasn't actually boots on the ground there so to speak. It doesn't make much odds, but it might be easier to be consistent in a lie if you haven't got a competing set of real events to confuse you. At that point you are just repeating a story.
We see in the background of his video as the firemen arrive, a group of three or four people at the location the Andrei Mendierej video was being filmed, maybe each of them filming slightly different versions of the same thing and the Andrei Mendierej one ended up being the pick to be published.
And then in a slightly different location as he pans back we see another group of at least seven people. They might be bystanders come to see what's going on, but I suspect more likely, they are part of the staging crew. If we are suggesting this is a fake plane crash, everything we see is setup for the cameras. Someone started the fires, and likely some of the broken wood we see was moved around the location to give the feeling a plane crashed through trees.
What do we notice about the blackbox? I mentioned the little balls covering the ground that are consistent with a soil/mud bomb splattering dirt forward as it hit the ground, a bit like the example below it. But we can see it looks like the very top layer is dry, particularly on the bit of metal which looks like it was incased in damp compressed soil for some time before the impact. Also the tree branch, which suggests the way it is covered, the soil was originally wetter than we see now.
It's not totally dry, but if we remember the agreed progression of the crash events. From his hotel room, Slawomir Wissniewski hears a noise of a plane that sounds odd, he goes to his window just in time to see part of the plane disappear into the woods, he then hears the bang and see some smoke. He grabs his camera, leaves his hotel, runs 400 metres to where he sees the beginning of a debris trail, gets out his camera and starts filming. Also remember, from the weather reports as stated in the official report, there is a layer of fog and visibility is no more than 600 metres, humidity is 98%.
Fog is wet, there should be no drying between the crash and Slawomir Wissniewski beginning to film. I think this in itself tells us there was some delay between whatever happened when the Russian IL-76 aircraft made its two passes over the airport, stated in the official report with the timing given from 09:20 to 09:39 before it diverted to Moscow, and the crash happening just over an hour later, at 10:41:06. (By-the-way, there's a 66 and therefore a 96 in that number.)
So we potentially have an hour between that event and the fires being lit, and this is what I'm talking about regarding people dressing the scene with branches. We saw in the blackbox grab, the branch on the ground was covered in mud; not so for the branches by the landing gear. See the mud splatters which are on the side facing the suggested drop zone, there is the same ball pattern on parts of the ground as around the blackbox, but this time the branches, bits of wood and that piece of metal look relatively clean; so they were added after the event.
This would explain why, rather than the claim that there was nobody at the scene other than Andrei Mendierej and Slawomir Wissniewski, there seems to be at least another nine people other than the firemen. And this would be why throughout, they are extremely flakey about timings.
I fancied I'd seen this on a RT, but I've now found the story as reported on CNN from the day of the crash also. It tallies with information given as fact in Jane Burgermeister reports, though she uses it to speculate something else.
Escaped Death: Polish journalists meant to be on Lech Kaczynski crashed plane
Polish President Dies In Plane Crash In Russia 132 Killed LECH kACZYNSKI NIE ZYJE
The CNN report gives us some timings, the presenter says the crash happened around about 3 o'clock eastern time, and we see from the clock at the bottom of the screen it is 6:10 AM, so just over three hours later. But apparently that weekend the clocks changed in Russia from winter to summer time, so it's unclear what the time difference is at the time of the report. I can't help thinking that's intentional. And what's the point of everyone moving clocks an hour twice a year anyway, and every country seemingly doing it on a different weekend? I know people say it's to disrupt sleep patterns, I always thought that was nonsense, what's an hour here or there when a lot of people have a different sleep pattern on week days as opposed to the weekend. But looking at it now, I bet it's a stock market thing, because the Russian stock market is going to open an hour earlier than it did the week before, I bet there was money to be made regarding Polish stock in those first minutes that caught lots of people unaware.
Did you spot something rather telling in those video reports?
RT report from 10-04-10.gif (6.97 MiB) Viewed 7277 times
CNN report from 10-04-10.gif (5.44 MiB) Viewed 7277 times
Slawomir Wissniewski video.gif (6.34 MiB) Viewed 7277 times
I think we can conclude all the footage we see in both reports is taken by the same cameraman, and that would be as far as we know, the film editor Slawomir Wissniewski. And do you remember what he said in his interview two weeks after the crash? He should have a clear memory of the events that happened.
...There were no problems with the firefighters who came after me. I told them I was from TV and they let me do it. But then guys from the secret service appeared who you can hear screaming in my film: “FSB!” Give us your camera”......They dragged me across the area and I fell into the mud. They asked me who I was and if I had any more recordings in my bag. I gave them all the films I had without resistance, except for the cassette which I later published on the Internet...
From that, what are me meant to understand? The film he published on the internet by his own admission was not taken by the security services. But he doesn't mention anything about selling his film to CNN or RT on the day of the crash, Clearly the media have sections of the same video footage that he did not post up to the internet. So the evidence doesn't quite tally with his testimony however we try to square it. Furthermore, he goes on to say he was sitting in one of the Russian FSB security service's cars, therefore inferring he was being detained, yet still he somehow manages to get his video out to CNN and RT and them all to agree a price within hours of the crash. Like I said from the start, I think we can take Slawomir Wissniewski to be an unreliable witness.
This is another video from thetruthergirls, the first one she posted on 13th April 2010, three days after the crash and she's talking about banking, news reports and speculation about what caused the crash, no mention of a shooting video. On the same link, there is a video dated the 18th April, Jane Burgermeister shows extracts from the Andrei Mendierej video which seems to have just surfaced. That's after the Slawomir Wissniewski video, it looks to have appeared about a week after the accident, although in the Wissniewski interview article it is stated it was originally published on the 11th, meaning Wissniewski probably uploaded to the internet on the 10th, the same point in time the news media use the video footage. It's syndicated isn't it? And Slawomir Wissniewski is probably the film editor who cut together the video for international news organisations, them already having a space scheduled in their playlist for it to slot in. He likely really was staying at that hotel room 300 metres as the crow flies from the crash site in order to turn around the video so quickly; though like Tusk and Putin laying flowers, which was likely filmed in the early hours of the 7th, this part of the crash footage might too have been film later that same day and why Tusk reserved six planes to fly in to Smolensk on the 7th.
The next video is from the 27th, and this time thetruthergirls is putting forward the execution narrative. Is it the Russians, is it the globalists?
Polish Plane Crash Update: Film Maker Assassinated! - 27 April 2010
Interesting little bit about Russia supplying Poland with gas. As I keep saying, the first countries to sign the UN into existence were the UK, the US, China and the then Soviet Union, (ie, Russia and Ukraine), then just after, France. And isn't it funny, there is no way the UK would be able to reliably fake space flights, not enough distance from people, so the UK retires never to attempt to go to space and we have the space race between the US and Russia, later adding Europe through France, and then China. Fancy that.
The globalists, Russia and China are the multi-polar transition step to the one world government. I mean it's already a one world government, they just want the minions to accept their supremacy and bow down to Baal. See from 25 minutes in, Iain Davis talking about the Sustainable Development goals, it's just another Casino Royale.
———————
I'm going to pull up another now gone report from Jane Burgermeister. She's a good source as she covers all the inconsistencies in the official narrative, and I think it's a good way into actually looking at the alleged flight. I'm really not sure how far I'm going with this, but I think it is interesting to try to link the flight data into the narrative this thread puts forward.
Only four people on doomed plane, suggests pilot communication April 29, 2010
The Polish plane that crashed in Smolensk, western Russia, on April 10th had only four people on board, audio recordings of the pilot’s communications with the control tower suggest.
[video removed from youtube]
According to the recordings found by Jadzia Donatowicz, the Polish pilot said that there were four people on the plane, indicating that the plane was empty apart from the four crew members.
This recording contradicts official statements that there were either 96 people or 132 people on the plane, including many top Polish civilian and military leaders.
The Polish pilot of the crashed plane IGA 703 communicates the information that there are four people on board as part of a routine exchange with the control tower as he approaches Smolensk airfield to land:
The Polish pilot says in Russian in the final sentence of the communication:
PILOT: “tolko posadka… a u nas CZIETYRJE czielovieka.”
“only landing… and here (on board) we are FOUR people.”
The audio recording could provide corroboration to a video clip that has emerged in which four gunshots can be heard being fired among the wreckage of the plane in the immediate aftermath of the crash.
It has been speculated that four gun shots were fired to kill the survivors of the crash.
The cockpit of the crashed plane appears to be in relatively good shape, and some of the crew could have been expected to have survived.
According to the official investigation, however, the crew were among the most difficult to identify by DNA analysis in Moscow where all the bodies were allegedly taken.
The audio recording suggesting that there were only four people on board the plane — the four crew members — would correlate with the four gun shots, and with the theory of four people being killed by four shots.
None of the video footage of the crash site has shown any dead bodies or parts of bodies or the personnel belongings of crash victims.
Officials have given different figures for the number of people on the plane.
Russian officials at first said that 132 people were on the plane and 3 had survived. Polish officials said that there 89 people and 7 crew members ob board, totalling 96.
Every flight has to have a precise flight plan declared on arrival and departure including the number of passengers and crew. It is, therefore, not clear why there should be discrepancies.
In addition, the time point of the crash is not clear.
Russian investigators analysing the black boxes recovered from the crash site have said the plane crashed at 8:56 am CET.
But a Polish journalist alerted his newsroom at 8:49 am CET of the crash.
The black boxes stop recording at 8:41 am CET, making this the moment when the plane most likely crashed into the ground.
Smolensk air controllers are supposed to have lost contact with the plane at 8:39 am.
Already at 8:25 am, messages appear on Russian internet forums saying:
'Something happened with the Polish airplane at our airport – all fire fighters are on alarm.
The revelation that only four people may have been on board the doomed plane will spark speculation that the military and civilians were abducted and killed in Poland.
Alternatively, the Polish delegation could have flown to Smolensk in different planes, adhering to security protocols. These planes could have been redirected to another airport and the passengers murdered on landing.
It is considered extremely improbable that so many Polish leaders would have ignored every security protocol and gone on the same plane together. But if they had been murdered elsewhere, a single plane crash could have been staged to explain their disappearance at the same time.
Adding to the mystery of who was on board, Polish journalists did not fly with the Presidential plane that April 10th morning as usual, and there appears to be no footage showing the Polish delegation boarding the plane at Warsaw.
President Lech Kaczynski is supposed to have made a call using a satellite phone to his brother shortly after 8 am, but it has been speculated that a voice synthesiser could have been used.
Also, Kaczynski usually phoned his brother, Jaroslaw, after he landed – and not before, it has been stated.
Another audio recording of the doomed flight suggests that the pilot had no problems with visibility with the pilot confirming „Haze“ at 8 kilometres.
The term "Fog" is used to describe weather conditions when there is visibility under 1 kilometre in aviation terminology.
Zapis z czarnej skrzynki z prezydenckiego samolotu na minuty przed katastrofą
The plane appears to have been landing on the non standard side of Smolensk airport where there is dip in the landscape, according to maps:
It has been confirmed by Polish authorities, in the meantime, that the body of the man found in Poland was the missing signals officer Stefan Zielonka.
So, the main thing to take from that report is the four people on the flight. This makes sense with regards to how I think they pulled it off. I'll look at this next.
Regarding the cockpit of the Tupolev being in very good shape; not so according to the official report, it is stated the cockpit was totally destroyed and therefore missing. A lot of people apparently assume the back section is actually the front. I've seen one video claiming the cockpit can be seen in the Andrei Mendierej video, and they put up a side-by-side, but I think they are mistaken, the angle makes a couple of different pieces of metal look like they form a window. It's the same set of objects, just a wider angle in the later image.
While I dismiss the shooting theory out of hand, I do agree with; "a single plane crash could have been staged to explain [all the disappearances] at the same time". Do I attempt to explain where they went? Certainly not all of them, but I have some thoughts.
The people who put forward the explosion theory have spent the bulk of their time since the crash and up until the release of the 2022 reinvestigation report analysing the flight data and distribution of crash debris. They are not so bothered with actual witness testimony that can confirm if a crash happened, and at what time. And it is clear why they are seriously not bothered with any such detail, and that's because none of it tallies, and therefore it seriously brings into question everything else they base their theories on.
From the previous post, "black boxes stop recording at 8:41 am CET" this is the time given for the crash in the official report. Yet at 8:25 am, messages appear on Russian internet forums saying: 'Something happened with the Polish airplane at our airport'.
In the first part of the Grzegorz Braun documentary, he makes a point of the timings, but appears to state something that is untrue, and that is rather curious. This is the part where he is talking about inconsistencies in witness statements and timings.
Later, the witnesses would give contradictory testimonies of what happened. Some would talk about loud engine noise of an aircraft landing in a thick fog, while others would claim quite the opposite, that there was a dreary silence.
Some would recall the sound of an explosion and a ball of fire, bright as the sun, others would deny effects of that sort. Contradictory statements pertain to other fundamental questions as well; for example, the number and types of aircraft that flew over Smolensk on that morning. Initial reports of a few wounded, supposedly transported to a hospital and Smolensk would never be confirmed. It will turn out that even the most basic facts, such as the precise time of the crash seemed hard to establish.
The official news releases its first claim that it was at 8:56 am Warsaw time and later put it back by an entire 15 minutes to 8:41 am, or 10:41 am Moscow time. What makes it even harder to establish the sequence of events is the fact that on that night the Russians switched to daylight saving time.
People from the Russian Ministry of emergency responses arrive at the Smolensk Severny Airport. The Russian Secret Service and other special forces shut off the entire place keeping civilians away from the wreckage.
Braun says the time changed in Russia that weekend, I took it that he had researched this and new it to be correct, but I've looked up his claim on two websites, and both agree in 2010, the switch from winter to summer time in Russia was 28th March and not 11th April, that's two weeks earlier than he suggests and would have had no baring on the confusion about when the crash happened.
It is curious why Grzegorz Braun went to the trouble of including that information for it only to be wrong and misleading. Also curious is why he stopped making his documentary series. We wouldn't know there was meant to be more parts except for at the end of part three he references what part four will be about — looking at the crash photos — that would have been an interesting watch.
We see there was a two hour difference between Russian and Polish time, Russia, two hours ahead.
Two hours and sixteen minutes before the crash, Jane Burgermeister states there was a comment posted at 8:25 on a Russian message board. You've got to wonder how anyone found that one, but even if you give that a pass, look at the wording, even though I know this is an English translation; — "Something happened with the Polish airplane at our airport." - What is this statement actually claiming?
"at our airport" — we are to assume this is from an eyewitness close to the airport, but this is not explicitly stated so should not be inferred,
"something happened" — this is neither a claim of something positive or something negative, the commenter could have given us some information about what that something was, but chose not to; so what was the point of the post then?
"with the Polish airplane" — this is the single point of the post, that a Polish plane was involved. it's the only tangible information they want us to take away, we can make everything else up for ourselves.
Given that this post appears to be from the creators of the crash scenario, why would they seemingly undermine their own narrative by including a time hours before the alleged crash? What if they are using this logic? If we create a definite single time that all the data agrees with and then someone manages to produce some evidence that proves it couldn't be that time, then we have a real problem. But if we scatter different times that contradict each other, then we create confusion...that's Babylon.
After the Flood, human society apart from God began when Nimrod, a grandson of Ham, organized the first secular government in the city of Babel (Genesis 10:8-10) and expanded it to Nineveh and other cities (Micah 5:5-6). He instituted a system whereby one or a few at the top profit from the labor of the majority under them. Soon there were many cities, each ruled by a self-willed king. Not content with one city, ambitious rulers, seeking greater wealth and power, armed a portion of their manpower and by aggression subjugated adjoining cities. Thus nations were born and then empires.
This grasping, enslaving principle of government, intertwined with economic manipulation, has dominated the world ever since. Whatever form human governments take, they display the same Babylonian style of rule. Governments have risen and fallen, but their basic principles have remained—competition and strife based on greed and pride (Psalm 10:2-11).
Regardless of form, human government is based on exploitation of people and resources, power, aggression, and deception. The entire system began and continues with the idea of cramming people together into cities. As a world order built on strife and competition, each of the four phases of human civilization—political, economic, religious, and social—has tried to dominate the others. In ancient Rome, politicians ruled over religion, business, and society. After AD 554, the Roman Catholic church dominated the others. In America, where self-rule is enshrined in the Constitution, big business and avaricious politicians have constantly struggled for dominance. Communism, as with all forms of socialism, induces the laboring class to support a suppressive government for the benefit of the elite.
Regardless of the particular form of administration, the civilization that now holds the entire world under its sway is the same Babylonian system initially established by Nimrod. Babylon means “confusion.” Competition and strife have produced confusion throughout the world (James 3:16), but “God is not the author of confusion” (I Corinthians 14:33). Therefore, this world's system of government is not God's.
Martin G. Collins
I couldn't resist putting that one in, because when you realise the meaning of the word 'Babylon', it becomes clear where we are living; and whom our leaders actually serve even if they do not realise it themselves.
In the last post I was wondering about the inconsistencies in time, but before getting back to that, it's worth noting the following. We found Grzegorz Braun for some reason added a barrier between us understanding the true timing of the event information that is available. Why would he do that? Either he created his documentary series on researched facts, or he created his documentary series on hear-say... This dents the reliability of the narrative he puts forward, and it's not that alone. He used a different video of Lech Kaczynski walking up the steps of the Tupolev when talking about his last trip. I realise this is probably classed as artistic licence, but I would suggest anyone watching would assume it was the last footage of Lech Kaczynski alive. Given he switched out that video because it better fitted the narrative he was putting forward, how sure can we be that other footage is authentic?
Is this just stock video of a Russian fire truck on a foggy road because the narrative tells us it was foggy on the day of the crash?
Are these people really stood waiting for the president's plane to land at Smolensk airport on the 10th April, or are they instead pictures taken on the 7th, when the Yak-40, tail number 44, was one of the six planes Donald Tusk had apparently booked for his visit to the Katyn Forrest for the 70th anniversary memorial?
In part two of his documentary, 'Two Delegations', Braun puts forward a narrative to explain why Tusk and Kaczynski didn't attend the same memorial on the same day. Can you imagine if it was instead King Charles and Rishi Sunak? ..."I'm not going to the same memorial as you, I'm going to arrange my own one, and you're not invited!" ... It's nonsense. In exactly the same way as "we haven't got enough room on the Tupolev to fit all the journalists, so what we're going to do less than 12 hours before the first flight is due to take off, we're going to move all the generals off the earlier flight, and place them on the later flight, and then we can move all the journalists from the later flight and place them on the earlier flight, and somehow this is going to all work out smoothly even though it is now out of office hours on the evening before the trip." ... It's just more utter nonsense.
And then we have the interesting little youtube happening. The Grzegorz Braun documentary was published in three parts in English on the 8 Apr 2019 in three parts. At the time of posting:
The first part has 570 views, no comments
The second part has 282 views, one comment
The third part has 231 views, no comments
Up four years and suddenly weeks after I embed the videos on this thread and use part two to suggest it shows evidence the laying of flowers at the crash site was filmed before the actual crash, suddenly that part of the documentary is turned into age restricted content. I find it fascinating that seemingly someone reading my forum posts can make that happen. It does sort of suggest I have a valid point.
I've used this reference earlier, but I've gained more insight into the crash since I last looked at it, and it's moving from a tentative theory to something that seems to fit the evidence better than the official or alternative stories. Again, it's from google translate, I've decide to delete and simplify some of the text from the official document quotes, in particular the sentence long department names, I mean, why use one word when you can use ten.
Some time ago I wrote an article on the following topic: Who sent the generals to Tupolev?
Now I have found this bottle mail which, although it does not answer my original question, reveals something about the government's organizational kitchen.
"Who knew on 22 March that the Casa would break down on the morning of 10 April? And why was a flotilla of planes reserved for Tusk, and only one flying coffin for the President and the Generals?"
Polska casa 295 M in Okęcie
Let's go back to the preparations for the flights on April 7 and 10 - what does the MAK report say about it? Here is the relevant fragment with comments:
page 15 1.1. History of the flight on 22 March 2010 to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Polish Embassy, a letter number PdS 10-14-2010 was sent with attached two requests for non-scheduled (one-off) flights in the airspace of the Russian Federation on 10 April 2010.
In accordance with requests, two flights were planned for 10 April 2010 on the route Warsaw (EPWA) - Smolensk Severny (XUBS) - Warsaw (EPWA) for Tu-154M (b/n 101, flight PLF 101) and Yak-40 (b/n 044, cruise PLF 031). The purpose of the flight was indicated as: "visit of the Polish delegation headed by the President of the Republic of Poland to Katyn and participation in ceremonies at the Memorial Site." This is the key thread - the Military Staff of the Polish Armed Forces was scheduled to fly with Casa on the morning of 10 April! For reasons still unknown, apparently a Casa failure, the Generals were placed in the Tu 154M-101.
How did the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs know on 22 March that Casa would break down on 10 April? Why wasn't there a spare Casa??
The letter from the Polish Embassy included a request to provide service at the Smolensk airport and to provide up-to-date airport plans and procedures. The Polish side asked for a navigator to board the plane. (we continue reading this report carefully, - there is information that the Russian "stormtrooper" was not on board, there is no information why!) The above request was agreed with the Department of Organization and Control of particularly important Flights, 31 March 2010.
The PLF 101 flight was marked "A" (interestingly, this one flight is marked "A", the other presidential and government flights are marked "K" — does "A" mean for Russians what "AF1" means for Americans?). The PLF 031 flight received the designation "K".
In accordance with section 3.13 of No. 1.2-9 of the Air Navigation Information Collection, on 9 April a letter was sent from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Polish Embassy with permission to execute flights: number 176 CD/10 for the PLF 101 flight and number 177 CD/10 for the PLF 031 flight.
On 30 March 2010, another letter was sent to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Polish Embassy, number PdS 10-19-2010, with three requests for non-scheduled (one-off) flights in the airspace of the Russian Federation. 7 April 2010. (note that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms that the "presidential" flight was booked first, and after 8 days a separate "government" flight).
In accordance with requests, three flights were planned for 7 April 2010 on the route Warsaw (EPWA) - Smolensk Severny (XUBS) - Warsaw (EPWA) of Tu-154M Str 16 aircraft (b/n 101, flight PLF 102) and two aircraft Yak-40 (b/n 044, cruise PLF 034 and b/n 0443, cruise PLF 035) with the Polish delegation, headed by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland, Donald Tusk. (This is 3 planes for the Tusk delegation). The above requirement has been agreed with the Department of Organization and Control of particularly important flights (the description of the preparations for the "presidential" flight does not include the term "particularly important flights' - the meaning of this phrase must be explained) 31/03/2010 with the designation "K".
On 30 March 2010, an additional letter number PdS 10-20-2010 was sent to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Polish Embassy with another request to perform a non-scheduled (one-off) flight in the airspace of the Russian Federation 7 April 2010. According to request, another flight was planned for 7 April 2010 on the route Warsaw (EPWA) - Smolensk Severny (XUBS) - Warsaw (EPWA) of the Yak-40 aircraft (b/n 047, flight PLF 037. This is the fourth plane for Tusk and co.
It was also agreed with the Department of Organization and Control of particularly important flights (Tusk "particularly important" against the President of the Republic of Poland invalid?), 01/04/2010 with the designation "K".
Additionally, on the basis of the letter from the Polish Embassy number PdS 10-21-2010 of 1 April, 2010, the arrival of three CASA - 295M aircraft on 7 April was agreed. (planes no. 5 and 6 for Tusk's team - a whole flotilla!!) In fact, on 7 April, four flights were made to the Smolensk Severny airport: one by a Tu-154M plane (PLF 102), one by a Yak-40 plane (PLF 035) and two by CASA-295M aircraft.
By the way: of the 6 announced planes, "only" four flew - isn't this too much extravagance in Tusk's "cheap country?"
The question remains - why was the entire presidential delegation crammed into the ill-fated Tu 154M-101. There is a complete lack of "forethought" here!
I do not include Yak-40's flight with only journalists on board - they were not members of the official delegation, and what is most interesting, their reports from this "event" are practically non-existent - so why did they fly if they did not report anything? (Why hasn't anyone asked them about this yet?)
The only one who provided interesting information was W. Bater, who was present there earlier and is said to have "disappeared", and his cameraman, Knyaz, who died mysteriously shortly after the incident.
Let's summarise the sensational "prophetic" thread regarding the allocation of planes for the flight on 10 April - either MAK wrote these orders for the Tu154M 101 and Yak-40 44 flights post fact, falsifying and backdating the documents, or the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs knew on 22 March that the Casa for the Generals would break down and purposely did not prepare a reserve one, although on 7 April both Casas took part in Tusk's "sortie" - note the disproportion in the treatment of the government and presidential delegations - on 7 April, 6 planes were announced for Tusk, and 4 flew, while on 10 April, only 2 were announced, including VIPs who were crammed into "unlucky" This is 154M-101, and the Yak-40 flew half empty with 12 journalists.
So much for bottle mail.
This is useful information, but is he purposely misdirecting? Firstly, as I've stated earlier, in the official (MAK) report, two Yak-40s were booked for the 7th as stated above (red), but both had the tail number 44, not 44 and 443. There is even an asterisk next to the text, the footnote states its not a typo in the report, and they don't know why the same tail number was quoted twice. Then to seemingly equal it out (?) he says three Casas, when clearly he uses the maths for two and adds the total up to six planes, not seven. I checked that translation and the word means "three" no matter which engine.
He's got an either or, but the Casa story doesn't add up at all. According to the Smolensk widow the journalists and the generals were swapped the night before because there was not enough room on the Tupolev, and there were more journalists than generals. Because in their bullshit story they had to create a reason why the journalists didn't fly and die in the Tupolev, when historically in every other flight, that's where they would be. And because they wanted to write a set of generals out of the script, but it would be bad protocol to put everyone on the same plane, they had to pretend it happened as a last minute cockup.
So in the space of less than 24 hours we have the musical plane seats where journalists and generals are being swapped around, then as presumably the journalist get to the airport, the Casa has engine problems, but then why were they swapping people around the night before if the generals were going to fly out on the Casa anyway...which now appears to be holding the journalists? And as the first set of people had to get to the airport at 4am the second set at 7am, they couldn't just say the swap happened last minute as the Casa/Yak-40 had to take off and land in Smolensk at least an hour before the Tupolev to give time enough for imaginary fog to roll in to create the conditions for the crash. Else how could the Yak-40 land safely at the airport, but the plane after being diverted after two failed attempts to land because it was too dangerous, with the Tupolev crashing in on the forth or first attempt depending on which time of the day you asked the question.
So more reasonably what do we see with regards to the plane allocations for the 7th and the 10th? Everyone had to be in Smolensk for the 7th, nobody had to be in Smolensk for the 10th. This is further compounded by the fact the Russians removed radar landing equipment on the 8th which they had specifically installed for Tusk's landing party. So when do we think Andrei Mendierej and Slawomir Wissniewski actually likely filmed their videos? And does this make more sense regarding the syndication and distribution of the video footage worldwide ready for the 10th?
