What is the proposed WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty? (2010 Smolensk Plane Crash)

[rachel]

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.

From time and date: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change ... ?year=2010

From sunset sunrise time: https://sunsetsunrisetime.com/daylight- ... k=DstTable

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.

What the Bible says about Babylon Means "Confusion"
(From Forerunner Commentary)

Genesis 10:8-10

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.

[rachel]

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.

[rachel]

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.

"Who knew on 22 March that the Casa would break on 10 April?"
https://www-salon24-pl.translate.goog/u ... r_hl=en-GB

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?

[rachel]

The more I look at this, the more flakey the 10th is looking. I come up with all these ideas about how they maybe went about swapping the 102 for the 101, but I'm beginning to think no planes flew on the 10th at all and the answer is staring me in the face. At the end of the previous Grzegorz Braun documentary quote was this paragraph:

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.

That's unsurprising given the likelihood nothing was actually happening at the scene on the 10th, being a Saturday and all, so they probably close off the place so locals couldn't snap pictures of the non-activity.

Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'm going to quote the same section of the report I quoted earlier regarding the flights for the two delegations.

On March 2010 the Third European Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation was sent Letter PdS 10-14-2010 from the Embassy of the Republic of Poland with two requests attached to conduct non-scheduled (single) flights in the Russian airspace on April 10, 2010.

According to the requests two flights were planned for April 10, 2010 from Warsaw (EPWA) to Smolensk "Severny" airdrome (XUBS) and back to Warsaw (EPWA) on Tu-154M (tail number 101, flight PLF 101) and Yak-40 (tail number 044, flight PLF 031). The flight objective was specified as “the visit of Polish delegation headed by the President of the Republic to Katyn and participation in the celebrations in the Memorial Complex”.

The letter of the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in the Russian Federation contained a request to provide handling at Smolensk airdrome as well as “up-to-date airport charts and procedures”. The Polish side requested to provide a navigator on board the aircraft. The request in question was agreed upon by the Department of Management and Control of the VIP flights of the Russian CAA on March 31, 2010. The PLF 101 flight was assigned Category A and the PLF 031 was assigned Category K.

In accordance with Para 3.13 GEN 1.2-9 of the Aeronautical Information Publication of the Russian Federation and countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Russian AIP) on April 9 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation sent Letter 176CD/10 to the Polish Embassy in the Russian Federation with a flight permission for Flight PLF 101 and Letter 177CD/10 with a flight permission for Flight PLF 031.

On March 30, 2010 the Third European Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation was sent one more letter PdS 10-19-2010 from the Embassy of the Republic of Poland with three requests to conduct non-scheduled (single) flights in the Russian airspace on April 7, 2010.

According to the requests for April 7, 2010 three flights were planned with route Warsaw (EPWA)-Smolensk "Severny" (XUBS)-Warsaw (EPWA) on Tu-154M (tail number 101, flight PLF 102) and two Yak-40 (tail number 044*, flight PLF 034 and tail number 044, flight 035) with a Polish delegation headed by the Chairman of the Minister Council of the Republic of Poland.

*Two identical tail numbers were mentioned in the requests.

See what I mean about the two Yak-40s having an identical tail number, and this being noted in the report. So why is the guy in the last post making stuff up about one of them being tail number 443? But more than that, do we see something else? On the 7th and the 10th it's the same two planes that have been booked, they've just stated the Yak-40 twice to make it appear there are three planes being used on that trip.

For Tusk's trip on the 7th, we have "tail number 101, flight PLF 102", the PLF 102 would usually be the designation for the tail number 102, because that really is the 102 that flies out to Smolensk on the 7th. Then on the 10th it changes to "tail number 101, flight PLF 101" because that's a fantom plane that pretends to fly on the 10th.

Then back to the 7th, we have "two Yak-40s (tail number 044*, flight PLF 034 and tail number 044, flight 035)"; the Yak-40 might have two flight numbers but it is only the one plane. Then on the 10th, we have the same Yak-40 (tail number 044, flight PLF 031) and this one likely doesn't fly to Smolensk a second time either, and that's why to answer the question in the last post...

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?)

...It's because there were no journalists in Smolensk on the 10th. The Yak-40 we see in video footage at Smolensk Severny airport was filmed during Donald Tusk's visit on the 7th.





The Casas are likely just a Babylonian distraction to attempt to hide the fact that the two planes that flew on the 7th are the same two planes that are said to have flown on the 10th. I've given my reasons why I think Tusk and Putin were filmed at the crash site laying flowers in the early hours of the 7th, then later attended the memorial service for which their trip was said to have been arranged. There's a chap in the military uniform at the crash site with Putin and Tusk, this is meant to be late on the 10th. We see him again at the Mass Lech Kaczynski was supposed to be attending, this is the competing event on the 10th.

While his presence doesn't prove either of these events happened on the 7th, it does suggest they were filmed on the same day, and since the flower laying ceremony is a good candidate for the 7th, that would mean the Mass ceremony is too. This would explain Tusk's "flotilla" of planes, however many actually flew. And it would make sense for the filming budget if this was a made-for-television disaster, that all the people involved were paid one day's work rather than forking out for flights on both the 7th and 10th, with the extra landing radar equipment being missing on the 10th.

[rachel]

The thing to bear in mind with what I am doing here, it's no different to what the 2022 reinvestigation into the Smolensk crash report did. Granted they had big grants and used fancy modelling systems to produce their conclusions, but they used no tangible real-world evidence from the crash for their conclusions, they just used photographs, audio recordings, published testimony from mainstream media sources, previously produced documents and flight data from the apparent flight. They didn't have access to the site, they didn't have access to the plane debris, there is no evidence in the report they produced that they had access to the body-remains pictures that apparently exist and were used to plot the dots on the following graphic. For them it seems just an exercise in modelling assumptions. Sound familiar?




This is the introduction to the 2022 Reinvestigation report where it sets out it's aims, the parameters it used to determine its conclusions and the interested funded parties. Or do we thing these people do this sort of research for free? Nope, you are the taxpayer paying for this unending bullshit, and that's why your taxes keep going up.

INTRODUCTION

The Subcommittee for Reinvestigation of the Aircraft Accident presents the results of investigations carried out in the case of the crash of the Tu-154M PLF101 aircraft of the Polish Air Force on 10.04.2010 in Smolensk. The starting point of the Commission's work was the analysis of the decision concerning the overhaul of Tu-154M and then the preparations for the visit of the Polish delegation headed by President Lech Kaczynski in Katyn, the flight to Smolensk, the activities of military and civil Polish and Russian services. The Commission examined the history of the extraction and reading out of the conversations from the cockpit (CVR) as well as the records of the flight parameters recorders and their reliability. It reconstructed the trajectory of the flight, the impact on the ground according to MAK and minister J. Miller's commission. The path of control approach and departure for the go-around was examined regarding the Tu-154M pilots, which had not been done before because it was assumed that investigating the events after a hypothetical hitting the birch-tree was of no importance. Meanwhile, it was the last 20 seconds of the Tu-154M flight that decided about the Smolensk tragedy. The commission reconstructed, in cooperation with NIAR - the National Institute of Aviation Research in Wichita, USA, the Military University of Technology in Warsaw, the Institute of Aviation in Warsaw, the Interdisciplinary Modelling Centre of the University of Warsaw and the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw the structure of the Tu-154M aircraft and simulated its flight and hitting the ground in accordance with the parameters of MAK and Miller's Report as well as the experts of the Military Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw. It also reconstructed the distribution of the plane's debris over the entire area of its destruction and the distribution of bodies and fragments of the bodies of the deceased passengers. An important part in the Commission's research was devoted to simulations and reconstructions of the explosion in the left wing and in the centre-wing, reconstructions of the disintegration of individual parts of the airplane, as well as pyrotechnical experiments. The decision-making process on the investigation of the catastrophe and the proceedings of the prosecutor's office and the aviation commissions were also analyzed. By order of the Subcommittee, analyses and research were conducted in Poland and in the USA on the traces of explosives on the wreckage of Tu-154M No 101 and in the plane Tu-154M No 102. Moreover, calculations and analyses were made, among others in the field of physics and aerodynamics, which would confirm or exclude possible hypotheses regarding the events of 10.04.2010. The correlation of the results of all those investigations allowed answering what really happened over Smolensk on 10.04.2010.

The Subcommittee appointed to re-examine the causes of the crash of Tu-154M on 10.04.2010 in Smoleńsk has no doubt that the tragedy consisted of a series of conscious actions, both in the area of overhaul of the Tu-154M No. 101 plane, the way of preparation of the official government delegation to Katyn, conscious, false bringing of the airplane to the landing 1000 m before the airport by the Russian controllers, as well as the failure and explosion which finally destroyed the Tupolev plane and led to the death of the President of the Republic of Poland, the entire government delegation flying for the ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the genocide in Katyn in 1940 and the flight personnel.

The research and experiments proved that the MAK theses (presented as the position of the Russian Federation), copied by the Miller's commission have no scientific justification, and the consent of Donald Tusk's government for rejecting the 1993 agreement with the Russian Federation concerning the investigation of the crash and accepting the Chicago Convention and Annex 13 as the basis for its work enabled the Russian side to make a number of falsifications, impeding the attempts of the Polish to find the truth. Among these falsifications the most significant were the interferences in the flight recorders' recordings, none of which was taken up and read out together with the Polish side. Verification of these records, as well as of other Russian actions, significantly contributed to establishing by the Subcommittee the actual course of events and the cause of the Tu-154M crash on 10.04.2010.

In the course of its work, the Subcommittee collected documents concerning the course, causes and circumstances of the aviation accident from, among others: Ministry of National Defence, Military Police, Armament Inspectorate, 1st Base of Transport Aviation, Military Institute of Aviation Medicine, Military Counterintelligence Service, Military Intelligence Service, Internal Security Agency, Intelligence Agency, Government Protection Bureau (now State Protection Service), Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration, Ministry of Infrastructure, Office of the Prime Minister, Office of the President of the Republic of Poland.

The Subcommittee also obtained access to 750 volumes of files from the investigation of Investigation Team No. 1 of the National Prosecutor's Office1 and selected results of works and analyses. However, the Prosecutor's Office, contrary to the provisions of the Agreement between the Minister of National Defence and the Prosecutor General of 5 November 2014 and contrary to the powers of the KBWL LP provided for in Article 136(1)(5), had not considered a number of the Subcommittee's motions until the date of publication of this report.2

This report establishing the causes of the aviation incident of 10.04.2010, together with recommendations and conclusions, was prepared in accordance with the legal acts binding for in the process of investigation of aviation incidents with the participation of state aircraft:

• Article 140 sec. 1a in connection with Article 1 sec. 4 of the Act of 3 July 2002. - Aviation Law3,
• the Regulation of the Minister of National Defence of 14 June 2012 on the organisation and operation of the State Aviation Accident Investigation Commission4,
• the Flight Safety Manual of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland introduced for use by Decision No. 67/MON of the Minister of National Defence of 9 March 2015.

In addition, the study applied as good practice selected recommended methods of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation "Investigation of Aircraft Accidents and Incidents"5, Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984); Manual on Accident and Incident Investigation Policies and Procedures (Doc 9946), as well as Defence Standard NO-05-A001 based on STANAG 3101 (NATO) and Defence Standard NO-05-A005 based on STANAG 3531 (NATO)6.

So, with all the funding we expect that must have been sloshing around given the actors involved in the research, how many times do we think the 2022 re-examination report references Professor Chris Cieszewski's 'Micro-Detail Comparative Forest Site Analysis' report of the crash site, linked here, since they claim to be after the truth of the 2010 crash? You know this satellite data:

Chris Cieszewski notices there was apparently snow in early April, but it only stuck in certain areas, these can be seen on = 5/4/2010 image. By coincidence, the patches of snow just happen to correspond directly with where the wreckage of the plane ended up on the 11/4/2010 image. See the red circles on each of the two pictures below for the match.

Did they do the further research Professor Chris Cieszewski suggested needed to be done in his conclusions?

That would be a 'not once' in the 326 page report, and based on a keyword search, 'no'.

So whatever this report claims to be proving, 'the truth' is not part of the mix. And it's really not surprising, as seemingly the main face of the continuing investigation into the 2010 crash that seeks to explain it by putting forward models like this...



...is the person with the beard...

...and he himself will know which day he attended the Mass being filmed here.

[rachel]

The thing that I find most glaring with this, it doesn't matter if there were explosions on the Tupolev TU 154m 101 or not if it didn't fly on the 10th. If it didn't fly on the 10th, it didn't crash on the 10th. And satellite imagery says there were already a set of objects taking up the exact same physical location of the crash wreckage on the 5th.

So if that is the case, was the Tupolev TU 154m 101 missing from just before the 5th to the 10th? No, apparently not. Yet we soon find out its twin, the Tupolev TU 154m 102 was missing, and what's more it was in Russia. Not only that, as previously noted, we find out that the documentation the investigation team was given from the crash site did not include the correct airworthiness certificate. There was an expired certificate, which was correct, but the current one was the airworthiness certificate for the Tupolev TU 154m 102, the plane that was apparently being serviced in Russia at the time of the crash. As if someone purposely switch the airworthiness certificates to enable the 101 to be flown out of Poland undetected prior to the crash while pretending it was the 102 going for its service, this in turn allowed the required opportunity for the 101 to end up in pieces in Smolensk under camouflage disguised as snow to be photographed by a satellite on the 5th.

The fact no Tupolev flew out on the 10th also explains why, from page 132 of the official report, there was no insurance for the plane or the flight crew. No plane > no flight crew > no insurance.

The aircraft was not insured. The crew members did not have insurance policies. In violation of Para 2.2 of Section GEN 1.6 of the Russian AIP the flight was conducted without compulsory insurance or other kinds of securing the responsibility of the owners of the aircraft for damage caused to third parties.

As a recap from Professor Chris Cieszewski's 'Micro detail comparative forest site analysis' report, video here, detailing the snow/crash objects.

It seems to be a quite an extraordinary coincidence that the majority of the large high reflectance areas were subsequently replaced on the image of April 11 by accumulations of major plane crash debris residing on seemingly dry (light) ground (Fig. 9 and 10, top left and centre). The seemingly dry ground (light reflectance in places of the snow areas replaced by the crash) could be explained if the areas of crash were in these locations sprayed with foam, which seem to be occasionally done on the crash site. However, most of the spraying activities recorded on the site were with water houses that would make the ground even more wet (darker). Most of the other high reflectance patches on April 5 scene were either in areas such as driveways, where the snow gets shovelled sideways, or they were partly concealed from wind by woody shelters where they were subsequently replaced on the image of April 11 by wet (dark) areas from melting snow.


Figure 10: Different parts of the crash area showing changing positions of the plane debris and the snow patches coinciding with either dry ground patches (light) with plane debris or with wet ground patches (dark) without the plane debris.

The visual analysis was the most effective though, when we conducted detailed inspections on of various elements on the images in isolation from the rest of the image. For example, Figure 10 shows three example areas that we have compared on the 4 consecutive pictures from April 5, 11, 12, and 14. The figure shows quite readily the irregularities that big patches of high reflectance in the crash area convert over time into what seems to be ground patches, even though there is wet ground where there was no snow in the crash area, and there is always wet ground there was snow outside of the crash area.

Do any of the investigations address this? It would appear not. So how can anything they publish be taken seriously? They seem to be wanting to create an excuse for war for no good reason.

[rachel]

It might be considered that the satellite image on April 5 was just bad luck. I don't think so though, Professor Chris Cieszewski made the observation when looking for satellite imagery for his analysis, he noted the number of high resolution cloud-free images available around the time of the crash did not fit the historic norm, and so therefore was noteworthy.

I noted earlier that it seems likely because of the frequency of the high resolution pictures around those particular weeks, that a fixed aerostat might have been used for the duration of the military exercises, and that the Russians were using it to position the debris in an exact layout and the pictures of Tusk and Putin in the tent kind of confirm this.





If we look at the way the debris is distributed, it does seem there was a plan, and that is to make it appear the plane did flip upside down before crashing. We can see most of the right side of the plane is on the left and vice versa, and I've guessed that's probably to try to account for the destruction and the missing flight deck.




An interesting thing is there were two sets of flight recorders, and it's funny from the next report, they talk about it being new information eight years later, yet Prison Planet was going on about the four flight recorders, and an actual fifth black box they'd found back at the time of the crash in 2010.

https://www.smolenskcrashnews.com/russi ... twice.html

The Russians hid the most important evidence in Smolensk crash. What else did they temper with?
Published: Septeber 6, 2018

The fact that eight years after the Smolensk crash we discover that Russians found twice the same set of the most important TU-154 M flight recorders, is incredible, said Wierzchołowski, Editor-in-Chief of niezależna.pl and the author of the article "the Russians replaced black boxes in Tupolev" published in "Gazeta Polska."

According to the Russian report from April 10, 2010, at 14.30 PM Russian officers found on the crash scene in Smolensk two black boxes - flight data recorders (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). These two black boxes were described as found in good conditions. What was important that they did not have any damage, so officers packaged them in plastic bags and sent them to the representatives of the Russian Investigating Commission MAK. According to a newly discovered report, six hours later, the Russian officers found again black boxes FDR and CVR in the same place, with the same labels, the same shape, and the same color, but this time identified as having extensive and numerous damage. This time black boxes were packaged in cardboard boxes. Russians tape the boxes with duct tape and then again sent them to MAK investigators. So that much we can learn from protocols, said Wierzchołowski.

Editor-in-Chief of Niezależna.pl, the author of the text published in "Gazeta Polska," reports that on April 10, 2010 in Smolensk, the Russians first found the intact, undamaged flight recorders during the daytime. Recorders were packed in plastic bags, were taken away from the crush scene and disappeared. In their place, identical-looking boxes - but this time with serious visible damage appeared a few hours later.

This information comes from protocols of a visual inspection of the crash site in Smolensk on April 10, 2010. These documents were written up by the Russian officers and were included in the Russian and Polish files of investigation data. It follows that the on-board recorder MSRP-64 m-6 (flight data recorder FDR) was found "twice"- first in early afternoon, then late in the evening.

All indications point out that the entire Russian investigation has been based on the data from black boxes that were found late in the evening, after they were found again and presented to the Polish investigators. Then the Polish investigators signed appropriate documents and surrendered all recorders to the Russian investigators. So, it appears that the second set of black box recorders was the source of the copy, which was subsequently used by both the MAK and the Miller investigators, said Wierzchołowski.

So today a question should be asked whether in such a case it is possible that there exist other records of the flight TU-154 M 101, different from those, on which the investigation was based.

Wierzchołowski points out that "no one knows the answer to this question."

There are more questions, however. We do not know what happened to the recorders found in the early afternoon. Where are they? Who has them now? We know nothing about these black boxes. The fact that we found out eight years after the disaster that the Russians found the second set of the most important flight data recorders, is simply incredible, Wierzchołowski adds.

I agree, it's incredible. But it's telling. I think this is likely why there were two different crash scenarios that circulated, and that's why we have two times for the crash.

From a BBC report...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8612825.stm

Polish President Lech Kaczynski dies in plane crash
10 April 2010 20:17

President Lech Kaczynski and scores of other senior Polish figures have been killed in a plane crash in Russia.

Polish and Russian officials said no-one survived after the plane apparently hit trees as it approached Smolensk airport in thick fog.

Russian media reports said the pilots ignored advice from air traffic control to divert to another airport.

Poland's army chief, central bank governor, MPs and leading historians were among more than 80 passengers.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the crash was the most tragic event of the country's post-World War II history.

The Polish delegation was flying in from Warsaw to mark the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre of thousands of Poles by Soviet forces during WWII...

...The Russian emergencies ministry told Itar-Tass news agency the plane crashed at 1056 Moscow time (0656 GMT) as it was coming in to land.

Smolensk regional governor Sergei Antufiev told Russian TV that no-one had survived.

"According to preliminary reports, it got caught up in the tops of trees, fell to the ground and broke up into pieces," he said. "There are no survivors in that crash."

Polish TV worker Slawomir Wisniewski said he had seen the crash from his hotel near the airport.

"I saw through the fog, the aeroplane flying very low with the left wing pointing to the ground," he said.

"I heard something being broken and then that thudding sound. Two flashes of fire next to each other."

Russian media carried claims that the plane's crew were at fault for the crash.

"Flight controllers... suggested that the plane be forwarded to Minsk but as far as we know the crew took an independent decision to land the plane in Smolensk," Smolensk regional government spokesman Andrei Yevseyenkov told Russian TV.

Russian officials said 97 people were killed in the crash, including eight crew.

Polish officials said that 89 people had been scheduled to fly in the delegation to the Katyn commemoration, but one person missed the flight.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited the crash site, after saying he would personally oversee the investigation into the crash.

"Everything must be done to establish the reasons for this tragedy in the shortest possible time," he said.

He was to meet his Polish counterpart, Mr Tusk, in Smolensk.

Russian officials said all the bodies had been recovered from the scene and were being taken to Moscow for identification.

Russia's Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu said both of the plane's flight information recorders had been found and were being examined...

That's the first crash scenario, note the story about the pilot taking the decision to land the plane independently of the flight controllers, and the time of the crash is 10:56 not 10:41. I'm going to guess that extra fifteen minutes relates to the Tupolev going around three times before crashing on the fourth attempt, which is the original story and fits with what we begin to see being portrayed here. And then for some reason, they decided to switch to a different scenario, so they replaced the black boxes with the ones where the Tupolev approached and crashed on the first attempt, and this in itself meant the flight time is shorter, and why the crash time drops back to the earlier 10:41.

And notice, right from the start, "Polish TV worker Slawomir Wisniewski", not film editor, is already placed as a witness to tell us a plane definitely did crash, he saw it through the fog.

[rachel]

When I found out Lech Kaczynski was a twin and the Tupolev TU 154m was also a twin, it was a given what I was looking for regarding his exit. But I needlessly came up with a grand plan of how they flew the 102 on the 10th and switch call signs so it could divert to Samara once it was in Russian airspace. None of that likely happened, it wasn't necessary. Instead they just lied about the Yak-40 and the Tupolev TU 154m flying out from Warsaw to Smolensk on Saturday the 10th. I'm going to guess that's why the Saturday was chosen, I thought it was a strange day for a Catholic Mass, but regular Monday to Friday staff wouldn't be around, so it was easier to fake the flights and the fog.

Below is a couple of videos of clips taken from the memorial service Putin and Tusk attended at Katyn Forrest on Wednesday 7th April.

PUTIN AND TUSK REMEMBER POLAND'S KATYN MASSACRE


KATYN CEREMONY


An earlier post we have a chap stating Tusk had a flotilla of six planes booked for the 7th, four flew. Definitely a Yak-40 and Tupolev flew, and I read elsewhere a Casa flew. What likely happened, on the Wednesday the Tupolev TU 154m 102 flies to Smolensk with the 101's airworthiness certificate, pretending to be the 101, {the 101 a week or so earlier flew to Samara Aviakor Aviation Plant with the 102's airworthiness certificate, pretending to be the 102). The 101 no longer needs an airworthiness certificate; the 102 will be issued with a new airworthiness certificate as soon as it has its service its booked for. This corrects the switch without the need to swap the certificates back. So directly after flying people to Smolensk for April 7th, it doesn't return back to Warsaw, instead it flies to Samara for its service. The Yak-40 might have stayed in Smolensk and returned on the 10th, that would be were the second Casa comes in. But equally, maybe not.

I'm looking for some indications that the Mass might have been held the same day as the main ceremony. We have the Russian Orthodox clergymen to the side of Putin and Tusk. We see a similar setup, the same blue candle holder used. The bottom picture could be a different stage of the same ceremony, the Catholic Bishops replacing the Russian Orthodox clergymen to perform the Mass.

[rachel]

I can't find independent video of the Mass ceremony that apparently took place on the 10th, the reason for the flight, therefore I'm taking grabs from part one of the Grzegorz Braun documentary where he includes a couple of clips. So let's firstly look at the seating. We see the empty seats at the front indicating the people who should have been there but were killed in the crash. We are told the President's delegation consisted of 88 people who flew in on the plane. I don't see 88 empty seats, there looks to be 30 to 35.

I'm not saying this is strong proof, the argument might be the other seats are off camera, else they let other people sit in them so it didn't look like they were playing to an empty house. We can see the same decking, but a different type of seat in the same location as the black folding ones pictured above, the same umbrellas are present. If more seats are on the other side, they would need to be stepped back from the big cross that is on the ground.

So is there evidence of the plastic green seats being present at the alleged Saturday Mass? And the answer is yes.

We don't know if the decking is permanent or it was installed for the occasion. There are other pictures of a different service where the seats are just setup up on the grass. It might be for the 70th anniversary they spent some money giving the site a facelift.

The next set of observations are more compelling.

[rachel]

I was interested to see if there was any evidence it was the same film crew. When you look at all the camera people at both events, the cost of a day's filming will be expensive, but two non-consecutive days? They wouldn't want to have to travel there twice, so it's not just paying for two day's filming, they would have to pay for the full four, including accommodation. This grab from Grzegorz Braun gives us some idea of the number of people who were bussed in.

So I specifically checked cameramen that got in shot to see if any were a match, hence the same crew. And yes I spotted one. We have a cameraman apparently on Saturday in a similar forward position he was in on Wednesday, we also see the same army regiment that featured in the Wednesday clips. The full grabs are available to look at in the last but one post.

But wait, it gets better, the man behind him in the second shot taking a photo, if we take a slightly different crop of the first image, we see he's actually one of the priests involved in the "Saturday" Mass.

This fits with what I supposed. The lighting for the Mass seems later in the day with the sun higher than the video that includes Putin and Tusk, the lighting seems more to the side on them. However you look at it, it suggests some time have passed between the two and the sun is in a different place in the sky. If we think the priest was watching the ceremony from the side, he's not robed yet so that suggests there is still some time before he is to deliver his part.

I think the decision was taken, green plastic chairs are not the correct visual look for the shots of Presidential delegation empty seats, therefore they were moved backwards and a set of better quality black folding chairs were setup specifically for this shot. It's all in the visuals.



This video clip was inset into the Mass sequence, but there is no visual proof this was when it was filmed, not from what Grzegorz Braun shows anyway. We cannot know if it was filmed during or after the ceremony, but it does look like it is later in the day. So either the Mass was part of the main event and just followed on after Putin and Tusk laid their memorials and left, and everyone else remained where they were sitting; else there was a break, the flowers and candles were moved out of shot, the Priests changed into their robes while the front table and empty chairs were setup, then people sat back down in a different position, then the Mass was performed. For any bystanders watching the ceremony as a whole, because the crash hadn't yet taken place, they wouldn't have twigged the point of the empty chairs.