A "Confident" Final Failure of the UN-OPCW Joint Mechanism?

October 28, 2017
(rough, incomplete (as usual))
edits 10/29, 11/3

A "Confident" Finale

The UN-OPCW "joint investigative mechanism" into Syria chemical weapons allegations is now at either a turning point or at its end. It may just be the sharpness of the turn that caused it, but the sword they've fallen on here suggests anything they say now will be among their last words. But only time will tell.

The Joint Investigative Mechanism (I've used JIM, they're now calling themselves "the Mechanism") was first formed in August 2015 to re-investigate Syrian CW incidents and this time ascribe blame. I sent them some important information and suggestion at the time (per formal submission guidelines and just ahead of deadline, so it should have been considered - see here). They apparently ignored it all. Through two years and six question-riddled and inconsistent reports, the Western-controlled panel again and again heaped blame on the Syrian government at every chance. They accept some evidence with no skepticism, dismiss some on dubious grounds, and ignore other key pieces of evidence altogether, in whatever combination best makes the case for blaming Syria.  From that, it's only logical to wonder if the blame was decided first and the supposed reasoning constructed later.

The Russians have had enough of their politicized distortions and voted against extending the Mechanism's mandate on October 24 (AP via Business Insider). The idea may not be to end it, but to rein it in an approve a modified and more balanced formula, which the West can then be framed as blocking, which they would.  For the time being, as its mandate expires shortly, the panel won't exist any more. Many in the West lament the loss of an "independent" panel, and the only one investigating chemical weapons allegations in Syria, allowing the Syrian government to get away with more murder. (see UK criticism of Russia's move).(note: of 15 security council members, 11 voted to extend the mandate, and 4 nation refused to vote yes. China and Kazakhstan abstained. Russia and Bolivia voted against.)

But on their way out, someone leaked an unfinished copy of their last report again accusing Syria of the alleged sarin airstrike of April 4 that was blamed for nearly 100 civilian deaths in the Islamist-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. An unofficial copy was made available (primary source and details and possible final version TBA).
<add 11/3>Final version is released. .doc file available for reading and download here. If that doesn't work, or for reference, the document is S/2017/904 Seventh report of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism. Distr.: General. 26 October 2017. Original: English. On quick review, the main points at least seem unchanged from draft used for this review.<end 11/3>

The version I'm reviewing is dated October xx, has formatting issues, no formal document ID number (it's #xx in the sequence), but otherwise seems legitimate and in line with their previous poor-quality work. Eliot Higgins at Bellingcat provides this PDF link in his fawning review. As Higgins puts it, the mechanism's report  "shows that, despite Russian and Syrian protests, there’s now clear evidence that Syria was responsible for the Khan Sheikhoun Sarin attack, and alternative versions of events presented by Russia and Syria are fabrications." Now clear evidence? There wasn't any before, and there's none added here, so what the hell is he talking about?

As this made the news, I noted a BBC report emphasizing - as most do -the "confidence" expressed by the investigators. This seems to be the main news; they're now extremely confident in their Syria-blame. Citing that BBC report, I tweeted:

"The panel is confident" #Syria dropped #sarin and killed people April 4. That's central for confidence artists. 

I put that out with visual reminder of problems they won't and can't have good answers for, which I'll show again below.

On findings already found ...

The rebuttals here aren't full and complete - the same I've recycled now several times, put best in my September Indicter article. The citations are copied at random, with no paragraph numbers yet to cite. They're from the document (subject to change in final). Most citations are not from the report main body but from the more detailed "Annex II: Khan Shaykhun."

Note 10/29: this was a quick review, looking for their take on my main questions. There are a lot of other issues, strange claims, and revealed clues I didn't cover here. Others bring some up in comments here and in other places.

Victim Questions

All questions about the victims and how and where they really died are as ignored as ever. the wounds to many victims suggesting they were executed, and perhaps hostages, and the lack of evidence for field rescues or in-situ poisoning. These gaps in the evidence leave open the possibility - which has emerged in most other alleged chemical attacks - that the victims were hostages held by local terrorists, and were gassed deliberately in some confined space before being loaded onto truck and finally shown during token visits to a supposed hospital. All we can see is they appear there suddenly, after being loaded in trucks somewhere they don't show us. 

There's no mention in this report or any preceding it of claims that some 250 civilians were kidnapped by Islamist rebels in overrun villages in Hama in late March, taken to Khan Sheikhoun, and killed and shown off as victims of the attack. Their Joint Investigative Mechanism's answer to this possibility doesn't exist. They've accepted the handed-in story with no apparent questions. There might be evidence that puts this and other hostage possibilities to bed, bit simply ignoring the question does nothing to help in that, and in fact underlines how maybe there was no good answer, and these might be those captives, or if not, then perhaps others who were kidnapped under less public circumstances. 

The Jet Attack   

"Forensic analysis of the videos found that, at a certain point in each video, the sound of an aircraft could be heard in the background along with an explosion."

I always thought so. We don't get to see it drop any bombs, and in fact the evidence suggests it didn't. But there may have been a jet or even two flying by at the same time.

The mechanism was shown copies of flight logs from Shayrat airbase, and saw originals when finally visiting there. The log showed no missions at the time specifying Khan Sheikhoun as a target. However:

"Two entries in the log book provide details of the “time of execution” of missions that correspond with the time frame that sarin was released at Khan Shaykhun. The operations relating to those particular flights are logged as aerial attacks using conventional munitions targeting non-State armed groups in the vicinity of Kafr Zita and Tal Hawash, situated approximately 8 km southwest and 18 km west of Khan Shaykhun, respectively."

So Syria's first attack of the day at 11:30 claim meant first attack in the Khan Sheikhoun area. This was a dawn attack flight, not reconnaissance as I had suspected until now. But the records say its attacks were elsewhere. The lead pilot with call sign Quds1 was interviewed and said the same. Exact locations were given for two bomb drops. The mechanism confirmed one site at least was damaged, though they didn't find out if it was damaged on April 4. The other isn't mentioned further. It might be these two attacks would use up all the bombs he had (?), leaving none or too little for Khan Sheikhoun. (Did he ("Quds1") drop the explosive bombs, or the sarin? That's still confused.) Perhaps carefully, the investigators' lack of findings here leaves open the option that he used zero of his weapons before going towards KS.

"The Governments of France and the United States publicly provided information that [two] SAAF Su-22 took off from Al-Shayrat airbase on 4 April 2017, were “over” Khan Shaykhun at 0637 and 0646 hours, and launched up to six attacks “around” Khan Shaykhun."

Note the use of quotes. There are problems with this the Mechanism is trying to dance around.

On 7 April 2017, United States authorities publicly released a statement and a map depicting a flight path of an aircraft originating from Al-Shayrat airbase that “was over Khan Shaykhun” at approximately 0637 and 0646 hours.The flight is depicted as conducting a circular loop in the vicinity of Kafr Zita and the north-east of Khan Shaykhun. The map indicated that the closest point that the aircraft was to Khan Shaykhun was approximately 5 km away.

I think it's closer than that, but still too far away to have dropped any of the alleged gravity bombs on any of the alleged spots. As shown below, the red line I drew is probably fudged a bit north (to be overly fair to the opposition story) By that, it's only about 1 km south of the edge of town, 1.5 from blast plume 3, and about 3km south of even the sarin crater. The true position is surely further out, maybe 3.5km or more, but I doubt it's a full 5 as they say, but maybe. And this is the closest pass that appears, out of two needed for the opposition story line (one jet dropped 3 explosive bombs, the other dropped the sarin bomb - but neither pass was recorded on this radar system.

One of the pilots they interviewed said he "was within 7 to 9 km of Khan Shaykhun at the relevant time." 7-9 km might mean the nearest dropped bomb (said to be ~8km), not the nearest flight pass, and not necessarily at the exact bombing time. But everyone agrees, the jets never flew directly over any of the bomb sites. Well, everyone except maybe the people who swore they witnessed both jets right above...

The flight track is not in error, and has confirmation:

"Additional information provided to the Mechanism referred to two aircraft having taken off from Al-Shayrat airbase at around the same time as indicated above, ten minutes apart, following the same flight path."

I thought so. The confirmed path illustrated, to them, "that air activity had taken place around Khan Shaykhun at about the time of the sarin incident." Put that the other way around and you'll see why that's the whole point - the incident was made to happen as jets were nearby. It's harder to blame your false-flag attack on jets if you don't time it with an overflight, on near-pass. 

To be fair, they usually don't bother. Activists claim jets/helicopter/etc., show no proof, and get no radar tracks shown as support. And still the accusation universally passes. But in this case, the stakes are higher than usual and, as it happens, they took the extra effort to have their events and claims timed with an actual jet pass. Now they can match it to radar records ... which was actually a bad idea, as the tracks were shown, and they prove the jets could not have launched the attack. While bombs fell on those dark blue dots, one jet was perhaps on that red line, or was somewhere else on its path, depending. The other one was even further away at all times. So the jets have an unusually specific alibi here.

Everything about the wording here shows the panel is aware that the jets were never in fact "over" Khan Sheikhoun.

"The Mechanism compared the flight times of SAAF aircraft taking off from Al-Shayrat airbase as provided by the Syrian Government with other flight information received. Both the Syrian and other accounts are consistent that SAAF aircraft were in the air at the relevant time. Where the accounts diverge is with respect to whether or not the aircraft flew over or in the immediate vicinity of Khan Shaykhun."

The original source for the claim it was over the bomb sites is from terrorist groups and their sympathizers. One of the "accounts" diverging from that is a radar track. Compared to witnesses, this is hard to ignore, and in fact the Mechanism cites it as sort-of support for their decision to blame Syria, proving a single Syrian jet did pass kind of nearby.

"To date the Mechanism has not found specific information confirming whether or not an SAAF Su-22 operating from Al-Shayrat airbase launched an aerial attack against Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017."

Lack of confirmation means the pieces of the story didn't come together right. To a reasonable investigator, that would mean the story didn't pan out. Here... they decided there was "sufficient credible and reliable evidence" for findings including:

• "Aircraft dropped munitions over Khan Shaykhun between 0630 and 0700 hours..."
• "Aircraft of the Syrian Arab Republic was in the immediate vicinity" at the same time.

Whose jet was actually over the bomb sites at attack time .. is the same. Vicinity = over, or close enough, or at least it might possibly be. They have at least one possible new twist they seem to think might save the claims. Do they now claim missiles fired over a distance were used, as a few sources have claimed? No. They still cite gravity-driven bombs, and just pulled this trick:

The Mechanism consulted with a weapons expert to ascertain the confluence of distance and altitude from which it may be possible to hit Khan Shaykhun with an aerial bomb. The expert concluded that, depending on a number of variables such as altitude, speed and flight path taken, it would be possible for such an aerial bomb to be deployed on the town from the aforementioned distances.

Bombs could be dropped on the town, perhaps, but it would be the south edge - perhaps to blast plume 3, but not to blast plumes 1 and 2 or the pivotal sarin crater in the north of town. For a straight down bomb to do that, the jet would have to be almost in outer space, or lower, depending on winds at the altitudes it would fall through.... and you wouldn't hear its engine then, not to mention targeting problems from so high.

Also, why is this "depending on ... flight path" Why not explain to the expert that this is an east-west flight path and we need a drift about 3-5 km to the north? Probably because that's how you get a "no" answer, and they didn't want that. So they settled for this extremely weak "possibly."

<add 10-29>Explaining: If the target were on the same line as the flight path, and out ahead, the jet's trajectory would add to the bomb's drift towards the target. But in this case the flight path is east-west, and the drift needed to hit the target is north, so this helps none. On that axis, only wind can alter this direction from straight down. By how much? That's debatable and I don't know how to get a best answer. But can anyone really disagree with this?

I'm not a weaponry expert, but this source explains traditional SU-22 maximum bomb drop altitude is 2 km, up to 5km with modernization. It seems likely Syria flies the non-modernized version, but let's consider both. And let's be fair and put the bakery crater 3.5 km, not 5 km, from beneath the jet. From each altitiude, I draw a gray line (arbitrary) to represent what seems like a realistic drop angle, if we had optimal winds (to the north prevailing strongly) Optimal winds could exist; I've established the wind near ground was to the northeast, at a moderate speed. At higher altitude it would be higher speed, and likely the same direction prevailing. If parachutes were used (hasn't been mentioned), this angle might be even shallower with more drift, but otherwise, the real lines might be steeper yet. 

From 5km, we could have bombs landing around the 1km mark by this. What we'd need to fit the crater with a bomb from this closest jet pass is marked in red for each altitude. It's bad enough 5km up, but at the more likely 2km ... this is more how a fluttering phone book would fall than a streamlined 250-500 kg bomb. This is what I mean, and if there is a realistic way for this to line up, it will take some illustration. The Mechanism's simple "it could happen... depending" doesn't suffice. We know what it depends on, so we should have a clear answer based on that.<end 10-29>

Side-note: "The Mechanism did not interview the pilot associated with the second entry" in the Shayrat log book (is this the accompanying jet marked Quds 6?) "The Syrian Arab Republic informed the Mechanism that the pilot was later shot down and is currently missing in action." As the linked source above explains, the point of getting the 5km modernization is it helps you stay above enemy defensive fire while engaging in bombing runs. Sounds like he wasn't.

Sarin Bomb
The alleged sarin bomb is not one of my core issues, but the report manages to say some stupid things about it I had to respond to.

"According to information obtained by the Mechanism, the filler cap, with two closure plugs, is uniquely consistent with Syrian chemical aerial bombs."

This claim isn't explained with reference to any models or images, and seems very dubious. It's inconsistent with the soviet-made WWII-era CW bomb cited by Human Rights Watch, who were looking at the scrap inside-out (as I explained at the Indicter). It seems consistent with several larger bombs using standard explosives - a filler hole cap (or perhaps “charge well plug”?) on something like the Russian-made OFZAB-500. Several similar kinds use these two little holes for the opening tool.

Here, the scrap with this cap that could be from many non-CW weapons happens to be almost the only surviving piece anyone can show. That's the case now in two alleged sarin attacks - this, and one a week earlier, on March 30, near Latamnah to the south. In both cases, this scrap also happens to land right in the crater, and happens to have one opening hole covered with dirt and one visible. (see Bellingcat) These strange coincidences don't seem to raise any red flags for the Mechanism. They think this is some special Syrian design that, along with the special Syrian hexamine method of making sarin, serve as a double-fingerprint ID of the regime culprits. It's preposterous, transparent, and just embarrassing to watch.

"The Mechanism was provided with an assessment of the filler cap and with chemical analysis showing sarin and a reaction product of sarin with hexamine that can only be formed under very high heat."

Very high heat also tends to destroy sarin, so it's not clear what they're getting at here. Perhaps heat = impact, meaning it must be a dropped bomb?

"Information was also received that additional metal fragments collected from the crater may possibly correspond to parts of Syrian aerial chemical munitions."

 But no one sent any proof to help clarify if these extra claims have any validity.

Sarin Spread: SW Wind, not Topography

As my research so far suggests, sarin nerve agent was legitimately in some of the biomedical and environmental samples tested by various parties (including he Syrian government). How exactly it got in each sample and what that says about the overall events is not so clear and really can't be known.

Everyone on and sympathizing with the opposition side, from first reports to this latest, agree sarin was released from one bomb only, dropped in the road near the central bakery. From there, the JIM explain:

Sarin of an undefined purity was disseminated from the crater in a direction that was defined by local air movements. The Mechanism noted that the wind speed in the area that day was <0.5 m/s, which would normally result in a considerable variation in the direction of the air movement. The Mechanism also noted that the location of victims, as described in the report of the Fact-Finding Mission, serves as an indicator of prevailing air movements west to south-west of the location of the crater during the early morning of 4 April 2017. 

Huh. Of course where people were actually poisoned should tell you what the wind was. But here, we don't really know where anyone was poisoned. There are many, and elaborate claims about where, all agreeing on a basic area. But they're just claims.

And the same video record the Mechanism otherwise cites tells a different story. A careful estimation using several videos from different angles is clear that smoke plumes drift to the northeast. The exact direction and speed are debatable, but not the basic northeast direction. Wind speeds at higher altitudes are estimated around 6mph, lower at ground level. There, two fields of fog are also seen (seeming to be man-made and attack related, at least for a visual effect. But neither is from the claimed area). Both  fields of this fog also seem to spread in the same direction - northeast. (see as needed the detailed wind direction explainer)

That's what the video says. Other sources (chattering Islamists) think the released sarin cloud must have drifted - no, pushed, violently - against the wind in this case, just about exactly the opposite of the true direction.

The "mechanism" chose their southwest wind based only where activists said it spread. And they do have it carefully mapped. Different sources have given the same area, in an unusually confident show of specificity. Several alleged survivors take camera crews back to the scene, always in that same area when location can be determined. But that could all be done by an agreed script, with an attached script map, and - if so - it seems like someone did that mapping backwards. This actually can happen quite easily; someone reports the wind properly (direction it blows from) as southwest, even giving a correct compass heading. Without clarifying or double-checking, someone then might decide that meant blowing to the southwest, and would place the alleged victim homes along this flipped path. Everyone else would have to follow that basic error without correcting it along the way. That could happen, and might be just what happened. Even if they caught the mistake early on, it might be too far in to be altered without appearing to change their story, which would also look bad. So, it seems, they stuck to the first version and hoped no one noticed the true wind.

But however it happened, they imply a wind opposite of the real one. The Mechanism chose to accept their implied wind. This then forms an important plank in their "confident" decision that a sarin bomb dropped there did in fact poison and kill people over here. Well, physical reality disagrees. 

How they decided the wind speed was low is unexplained, but they probably are citing the OPCW's earlier report. This did conclude very low wind speeds, explaining that activists told them about it. They did no video analysis either. They decided the supposed lack of wind (not one to the southwest) left local topography as the mover, and there was a down-slope to the southwest that killed everybody. However, they placed the crater wrong in the graphic showing this; the bakery area is indicated instead, helping that explanation look plausible. If it were placed right, we can see the down slope from there is to the northwest - another wrong direction. (See OPCW's No Wind Theory)

The mechanism does not repeat this argument, saying "air movement" (aka wind) was the main driver. They must have some good reason to reject the finding of the OPCW in this regard, when normally their readings on such CW-related things are seen as superior to all else. 

Note: The area in question, where sarin was allegedly released, is not seen on immediate post-attack videos. But as noted, two other areas of fog are seen and appear to spread northeast. By topographic maps, that spread is mainly uphill. By these precedents, any plume of gas or vapor released at this crater should also drift northeast and uphill on the same surface-level wind, but perhaps more slowly, as the grade is steeper in this area.

So, considering both observed wind and topography, the activist-supplied narrative still clashes 180 degrees with reality. If they claimed sarin was released in either of the areas that fog is seen pouring from, they might have a case. But they and all subordinate investigators, like the Mechanism here, continue to ignore all of that and insist on this stupid bakery crater lone-release point story that was ruined from the start.

Conclusion:

"The irregularities described in this annex are not of such a nature as to call into question the aforementioned findings" that Syria was probably pretty much to blame for this thing. Well, the best irregularities, of course, aren't presented in "this annex." Based on the crap in there, "the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017." No doubt a lot of people are taken in by and share that confidence, but they really shouldn't be. 

Recall those children seen dying on video inhabited the physical world you and I do, not any made-up place on paper or transmitted digital files or in any propaganda-laced myth narrated by lightly-bearded jihadists. 

In the made-up world of neck-tied hand-shakes UN "international community" consensus, it's verging on scientific fact worth shaming anyone who disagrees. It might be worth bombing them to death, if they're Syrian and disagree militarily, or live in the wrong house under the wrong bomb ... never forget the disastrous Iraq and Libya scenarios, and the slim-to-no basis in truth each one's moral pretexts wound up having. Would it really be a shock that Syria could be the same?

But in the reality those children physically passed through... it's where we live too, though far away in space and well-insulated. Are we really that confident these UN and OPCW people have been feeding us the truth? Isn't it at least worth another look from a different viewpoint to see if the picture remains this clear or turns out to be an illusion? We need to be extra careful in issues of war and peace, right and wrong, and on proper ways forward towards a just peace in line with the needs and rights of people inhabiting this physical world? Yes, we do. 

Not such a Great Call-to-Action but hey, here's one

Now this is no complex case - the opposition story is especially shoddy - it's almost as if they wanted a worst case to put their foot down over, to emphasize the effect of their Owellian demands: these lies are truth, the proposed unjust punishments are justice, and all decent people must stand behind this basic truth or become traitors to justice for the innocent people of Syria. Dissenters will be flagged as part of the global bad-guy axis, Russian agents and so on.

The fact is, this case presents a great chance to bring truth to power, to show the extra-important claims are unusually well-illustrated as being false. This would be a big step towards unlocking the mystery of why all our help has only made things worse. It could be this same kind of deception is behind all the other accepted crimes providing the running precedent to keep accepting more. Wrong diagnosis, over and over.

For "the Russians," for everyone, and especially the actual Syrian people, and for the victims of the next planned and ongoing wars based on similar systemic lies ... this idiotic story being on such a grand stage is a golden opportunity. Maybe with the right pressure, placed on the right questions, a new probe capable of reaching the actual truth could be muscled into existence. It may not be at the UN, but it could have a lot of real credibility and influence if it were set up right. It might use lots of volunteers all over the world mainly working "open source intelligence." I'd volunteer to be one of those, of course. Someone, please, get on this task.