My father’s mobile phone was not damaged and worked. Among his belongings were nearly intact LOT flight tickets and a schedule of the visit to Katyn. Yet the Russians made me sign a document allowing them to burn his things, claiming they were ‘shredded, bloodied, soaked with gasoline and mud, nothing left of them.’”
– Małgorzata Wassermann, daughter of Zbigniew Wassermann, one of the victims of the Smolensk crash.
🖼️ Illustration:
A glowing smartphone standing amid ashes and smoke — a symbol of surviving evidence defying the official narrative.
🔥 What Survived – and What Shouldn’t Have
The statement of MP Małgorzata Wassermann is not only a moving personal testimony but also a logical challenge to the official narrative of the Russian MAK report and its Polish echo — the report of Maciej Lasek’s Commission.
The Russians claimed that during the crash, forces exceeded 100 g, allegedly causing instant death of all passengers and the “complete destruction of clothing, leaving only rags.”
Yet the belongings later returned to the family — a working mobile phone, almost intact paper flight tickets, and a printed Katyn visit schedule — tell a completely different story.
📱 Physics Has No Exceptions
A load of 100 g means forces capable of tearing apart steel structures, crushing seats, and destroying any small object.
Under such conditions:
- a phone would break into pieces,
- its battery would disconnect or explode,
- the screen would shatter,
- and paper would be torn or burned instantly.
If a phone survived undamaged and functional, and if paper documents remained legible, then the actual forces must have been far lower, and the official version of “total destruction” appears physically impossible.
🧩 Questions Nobody Dared to Ask
Why has the Lasek Commission never addressed these inconsistencies, even though they undermine a key element of the MAK narrative?
How could delicate paper tickets survive if the victim’s clothing was supposedly destroyed?
Why did Russian officials pressure the family to authorize burning the belongings, which were clearly not destroyed?
Who approved such actions instead of insisting that all personal effects be secured as evidence?
⚖️ What the Lasek Commission Should Have Done
The commission led by Dr. Maciej Lasek — established by the Polish government to “explain and popularize” the MAK findings — should have responded to these facts in line with physics and investigative procedure by:
- Reconstructing the physical scenario to determine if a mobile phone could survive 100 g forces.
- Verifying the authenticity of recorded acceleration data, considering the possibility of simulation or manipulation.
- Demanding full documentation of personal belongings of all victims, including photos, condition reports, and handover records.
- Publicly addressing the Wassermann testimony as material evidence contradicting official claims.
Failure to do so shows a lack of scientific integrity and confirms that the Lasek report was more a defense of a political narrative than a search for truth.
Conclusion
Physics does not bend to politics — and the truth about Smolensk still waits for someone willing to face it.
If the phone survived, it could not have been 100 g.
If the papers remained intact, there was no “fire that burned everything.”
Tytuł witryny 