Warning

Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.

Sunday, June 2, 2019

How the Russians Faked the "OPCW Douma leaked report"

As explained by Clay Claiborne
<< Douma Chemical Masscare
June 1, 2019
last updated June 3

Regime-change enthusiast Clay Claiborne has now piped in on the OPCW leaked engineering report making some news lately (my own 'overview' post - will be better in time). This, he contends is probably not an OPCW product and doesn't matter, and could even be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. In fact, once he put that down in words, I suspect he's almost certain of that by now, a day or so later.

Not that his take is important, but it could cause some confusion. And it seemed like untangling that in advance also helps to explore a couple of relevant issues. The article is called Lies, damned lies, and engineering sub-team reports https://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2019/05/lies-damned-lies-and-engineering-sub.html

Claiborne speculates "It was never OPCW's report, hidden or not. It was [signing author Ian] Henderson's report" deceptively "imitating" OPCW forms to make it look like theirs. This loaded distancing opens the way for Clay's phase two: the Russian disinfo conspiracy theory. He highlights this from the Russian report analysis NV759 "there is a high probability that both cylinders were placed ... manually rather than dropped from an aircraft." Why?
"...because I want you to notice how similar it is in logic, and even wording, to the conclusion that Henderson's engineering sub-team report came to. Promoting that view by quoting a Russian source would be a daunting task. Selling it out of a first “suppressed” and now “leaked” engineering sub-team “dissenting opinion” is the smart move."
It's all, or might be, "a smart move" by some plotters. Huh. So Ian Henderson was maybe an insider agent, helping the Russians, Assad, whoever exactly to pre-seed their loony claims as having the OPCW stamp. He notes that the translated science words come out pretty much the same in English - manual, etc. They should be using, or someone translating to, different words for the same things, unless there's a conspiracy?

In fact the similar reasoning could mean that it's REALITY and CLEAR, HONEST THINKING that gets all these disparate sources agreeing: Henderson and co. within OPCW, outside experts like the structural engineer cited by Peter Hitchens, several independent "conspiracy theorists," and Russia's analysts at several points. The dissenters: someone with higher authority in the controlled and politicized OPCW, and a whole lot of people who've put their trust in the former.

Claiborne rules out such a view because he knows, somehow, that it's the watchdog at the Hague that, "like most science-based investigative bodies, applies the best science to the known or knowable facts and presents its conclusions at the end of the investigation." Now if that's his basis for such unhinged theorizing, it's simply his uninformed, faith-based opinion.

An Unofficial Document?

Skipping all the "history" distractions for now anyway, even skipping his pointless opinions about Robert Fisk's reporting on Douma, let's cut to the EST report. Most of his time there is spent on - as it turns out - a side-issue about how the document we see appears to be unofficial, not a proper OPCW product.

For example: "It wasn't done on anything like official stationary, it has no OPCW logo." Are these known to be standard for internal reports of sub-teams? Maybe Clay found out it is standard, maybe he's just presuming. He lists a lot of issues like that, grasping for straws even; he complains how "All references to the FFM team are in third person." Indeed: it never says "we," always this external "FFM" or "FFM team." The FFM's reports, in contrast, refer to themselves as "the FFM" or the "FFM team." So … no problem there. He notes the report is "not signed by any OPCW employee(s) with title ... (nor) indication of employment." No, but we find out he's a long-term employee of the OPCW, apparently off-and-on. And this seems to be some of his paid work, that may or may not be of value or relevance. This point counts for little.

Still, the bulk of  issues Claiborne raises may well constitute a valid point. He takes issue with the header "OPCW sensitive, do not circulate," noting how it would have to circulate (depending...). And compellingly, Claiborne adds that "OPCW Sensitive is not found in the OPCW Declarations Handbook 2013, which was revised in 2017 and is current, as are OPCW RESTRICED, OPCW PROTECTED, and OPCW HIGHLY PROTECTED." He links to that handbook, and while I didn't verify his reading, I'd guess he's right on this point.

Update June 2: I may hav misread the point here. Qoppa999 helped me notice the obvious - sensitive is not one of the classifications, because this is UNCLASSIFIED, as it also says right there. The handbook says (and Clay notes now, and maybe noted before) "In addition U is normally used to include information which is not considered confidential (Unclassified)" - all forms should be marked HP, P, R, or U. If left blank, they call it U. Those are their four class-and-non-classifications. I didn't see anything for or against adding "sensitive" to unclassified. Clay's point was Henderson did this to avoid getting in trouble for using one of the heavy classifications, but still suggesting secrecy to the outside viewer, I guess?

We might also consider how the timing leaves little time for inclusion in a real process; the final report was set for release March 1, 2019. With nearly a year to get there, they should have had all science in hand long before that. But these points are only submitted on February 27, two days prior to the last minute.

It's likely this was not requested by the FFM and might, as suggested, be penned by Henderson personally (perhaps in agreement with others). I and most of us can only speculate as to why, but consider it might be an unofficial internal message, which could be stated like: "please postpose releasing that report, and re-consider your approach vis-à-vis the engineering science. I/we still stand by it. You shouldn't just erase and replace it like this."

That would be an important wrinkle in the story and our understanding of the document we see. But as for divorcing its important content from the OPCW FFM's investigative process -  which was clearly the author's intent - it probably means nothing.

Claiborne might have missed that this unofficial-looking document is an expanded revision (1) of an earlier report, presumably of the same name. Also, it's an "executive summary." There may well have been a fuller submitted report (and an expanded revision of that as well?) with more detailed explanations.

What did the original(s) look like? When was this assessment first submitted? What place did it originally have in the FFM team's work? I presume Claiborne has no idea. I've never seen it. I'd like to. (Placeholder at right). But with a bit of study we can see how it's likely reflected in a couple of mysteries about the FFM's investigation timeline, and their final report's content.


Evidence for Relevance

This report is called "the result" of what signing author Ian Henderson refers to as the "FFM engineering sub-team." (hereon: EST) It's not clear when this first EST assessment was - or would have been - submitted. But the FFM's interim report in July said work was ongoing to reach a "competent" engineering assessment on issues including trajectory, metallurgy, structural engineering, etc. They were apparently just deciding that in early July, and it wasn't until October to December that they commissioned and received these findings, from parties that sound external to the FFM, and were not even called a "sub-team."

The notable delay of months might have been spent first waiting for the EST's assessment, received perhaps in May, then considering it, debating and finally rejecting it, and then agreeing on a new course, all prior to the July repot. That could mean the EST was in fact the portion of the team originally tasked with these questions; the delay was caused by an awkward switch from plan A to plan B.

Add June 3: Brian Whitaker heard that "Henderson and others did go to Douma to provide temporary support to the FFM, but they were not official members of the FFM." That would be involvement early on, in late April, 2018. There, they might have taken their own photos, done their own measurements, etc. The later-consulted experts did not even go to Douma. They and EST both could draw on photographs and other materials the FFM gathered.

To Claiborne, the EST assessment seems like just one guy's fringe view, and probably wrong-headed. It didn't have to be considered, and probably shouldn't have been. But the FFM apparently did consider it, arguing against some of its points - and poorly - in their final report. Explaining how the damage lines up with the cylinder impact alone, they close with a seeming non-sequitur; the fire in the room seems to be deliberately set. What does that have to do with the impact damage? Ah... as I explained here, that "scorching" was noted in the Henderson / EST report as suggesting an explosive impact caused the damage. And in the point right before that, the FFM refers to a "hypothesis" to just that effect, which they were able to rule out.

It does remain possible - in a stretch - that they were considering the same points for another reason. But let's consider it as if; presuming the same four contested points were raised in the original EST report and/or executive summary, these should be the points the FFM had to contend with:
- extreme roof-rebar damage
- spalling (cracks from shockwaves)
- scorching of upper walls and ceiling
- possible fragmentation pattern

(a fifth point is disputed by no one - the FFM agrees with EST, the Russians, and all outsiders that there are extremely similar holes in other roofs nearby in Douma. Most of the are presumably NOT caused by falling gas cylinders but by mortar shells and the like. FFM just presumes that's not relevant; two different processes must have cause such similar results. So it's at least somewhat debatable.)

Of the four points, the FFM didn't even touch on the spalling, nor (crucially) on the drastically bent-in rebar of the impacted beam, which probably required a powerful, expansive blast wave to occur. They happen to be right on one of the two they did address, but the other is baseless and grossly wrong. This clear and unqualified "absence" of fragmentation marks (primary or secondary) was never established at all. In fact the presence of both kinds is better-illustrated and close to a universally obvious fact, even if it remains just as slightly-debatable as nearly anything can be, in the wrong hands. (all explained at the same blog post linked above) (below: strong evidence the FFM shows and also ignores  - just to outside the red circles, a pattern of densely-packed punctures, some going clear through the wall.)

The FFM don't explain how "this hypothesis" of an explosive weapon is one proposed by the FFM's engineering sub-team. But they do engage its points as if they mattered somewhat, and can be seen arguing it down partially. This is clearly not the proper way to present and consider two internally competing hypotheses. But it counts as a kind of mention or reference - a likely proof of existence, as well as of unfair treatment.

Conclusion: it must add up, somehow

Clay Claiborne makes some valid points here about likely unofficial origin of the leaked report we've seen. But that has limited relevance, and his core points remains contrary to the available evidence. It still seems the EST's findings were relevant, valid, and wanted - until the FFM leadership saw the result. Sometime by July, they decided on a re-do of the engineering details more in line with the political demands placed on the Fact-Finding Mission.

This whole subject is about scientific findings, but Claiborne has hardly a moment to consider these details. With no science-based reasoning provided, he dismisses the EST's findings as just one theory of what he presumes was a chaotic plethora of them; most of those would be wrong, and need to be pre-sorted by professionals. Claiborne posits as likely that "the purpose of the final OPCW report is to bring clarity, not muddy the waters," and hence their filtration of confusing notions we're best off protected from even hearing.

I guess anything's possible, sort-of. But maybe the OPCW - to use the same terms - didn't want their mud getting watered down or washed away.

As Claiborne explains, "Assad and his supporters" have used the OPCW's lack of clear blame as a "vacuum" they fill with the manual planting theory. He closes with a quick note on how astoundingly unlikely that is, in his sparsely-furnished mind. "Assad and his supporters" make this claim "without giving a minute's thought to the actual logistics of “manually placing” a gas cylinder on a child's bed in a crowded neighborhood."

He has no idea how much thought they gave the subject. He doesn't explain what makes this neighborhood especially "crowded" as to be notable. But there are a host of issues; It's heavy, awkward, with that harness. You might get scratched doing the bed scene. Someone might see you, and expose you, considering... what? The vigorous checks placed by independent media there in liberal, liberated Douma? You might drop it along the way, a couple times, chipping a door jamb or denting the bed frame, and that would give you away in later images, for example. No way could they do that and get away with it, with sharp minds like Clay's and the OPCW's FFM watching skeptically...


They might scratch the paint by pulling it past the broken wire mesh on the balcony at Location 2, or pick a site with insufficient damage (entry hole too small, Location 4), or otherwise choose a scientifically implausible arrangement. Obviously that would be called out by scientists, including in the OPCW *known* to employ only the best practices. And those certainly would not be suppressed. , We'd hear all about it, if that happened. For these reasons, even as we are hearing about it finally, Clay is comfortable presuming it's an outlandish, unlikely scenario, leaving us with little choice but to presume the science must add up, somehow.

Let's up the game now. If he thinks carrying two gas cylinders in is bizarre, consider how - un-noted by Henderson/EST, and by the Russians (I think?), and by Claiborne -  the staging would also include dozens of bodies of civilians - including babies. These were murdered - probably elsewhere - and seem to be arranged at Location 2 after transport, probably via the underground tunnels that open near the site.

The people doing that clearly would not want to be caught or filmed in the act. It is an issue. But guess what? They were a well-armed militant group calling itself Army of Islam (Jaish Al-Islam). They ran the area since late 2012. They held thousands of civilians prisoner, after kidnapping them on largely sectarian grounds. Only a small portion of these were finally released in April, others having gone missing. Perhaps 35 or more wound up being the victims shown off on video as chlorine victims.

It's they (Jaish Al-Islam) would put out calls to the public to possibly alter how "crowded" a given area would be, and they were able to enforce that. The event reportedly happened just after sunset. The completed scene at Location 2 is only visible by about 10pm. So they'd be working under cover of darkness. The ruling terrorists could, if they wanted, pull off such an operation effectively unseen (e.g. someone might have filmed the involved trucks moving, in dim light with loads well-covered. It would be evidence, but not proof, and the person releasing it might die.)

Jaish Al-Islam could release some gas in the open as an excuse why everyone had to stay inside or they WOULD die. Staying away from windows and roofs might've been specified. Especially the tunnel entrance we believe they brought the BODIES in via; the FFM heard the gas was so strong there anyone who "tried to go towards" the tunnel entrance in fact "DIED." Somehow, they heard, people died in several basements and out in the streets, besides near the tunnel, and even on rooftops.

The Douma based opposition group VDC - whose founder was app. kidnapped and killed by Jaish al-Islam - reported afterwards the group was preventing independent access to Location 2, only allowing its approved media people in to document the crime scene. So this is not some utopia of transparency.

And with nothing further to base it on, Claiborne directs his readers to focus on Trump, and not Syria, at this moment: "Anyway, back here in the United States, few are paying much attention to these Syrian developments, because we have just received a long-awaited report describing the crimes of our president." So this minor issue, for his readers, could be dismissed so: "Henderson's note is to the FFM Report on Douma, what Bill Barr's 4-page summary is to the Mueller report."

It's all part of a Russian disinformation conspiracy, man. They got their people in there writing all kinds of supposedly official documents, to manipulate our minds, man. They even seem to involve good science and reasoning. Extremely tricky stuff. Good thing Clay's on the case.

Add June 3: an eample of the clear thinking at work here, from Claiborne's article, with notes:

33 comments:

  1. "unlike the OPCW documents I reviewed, which always carried the OPCW logo and name"

    Q.- who is Clay Claiborne and what insight does he have into internal OPCW or OPCW consulted expert documents? As far as I can tell, he is a Linux systems admin at an unrelated company. Not seeing how "At my job" is even relevant here. It looks like something was stapled to the engineering assessment (top left p1) so how does he even know the top sheet is included?


    "uses a lot of space presenting the results of various experiments and calculations, but without details or data"
    - just like the final FFM report

    "such poor quality"
    - because it is clearly a photocopy

    "so late in the game"
    - pure speculation about the FFM report release timing and planning (complete with typos and mistakes)

    "Russia has never seen a chemical weapons attack in Syria that it has been willing to blame on Assad or itself"
    - how many Syrian chemical weapons 'attacks' has *anyone* blamed on Russia?

    "The method at work here makes a travesty of any concept of scientific investigation."
    - the report is talking about the *situation* here not the investigation and about avoiding mixing information and opinion, CC cannot read it seems

    "If that was an issue, then perhaps the suspect craters could have been examined for explosive residue or bomb fragments that wouldn't have been made by a dropped gas canister"
    - if it is *not* an issue, what is the purpose of A.6.3? The FFM couldn't go onto the roof above the balcony because of security restrictions but he thinks they could climb up on the building next door..!

    "Child's bed" ...? Waste of my time reading it now...

    CC's piece looks like a badly thought out diatribe with speculation thrown in. Oh no, my mistake, it is in fact "excellent".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am assuming he means other "suspect craters" given that the balcony and bedroom craters *were* examined for explosives in A5.1 with DL03's TNT results. Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit.

      Delete
  2. You so mangle my words, taking pieces of quotes here and there to put words in my mouth rather that quoting whole passages or sentences. Never mind, people can read my work for themselves, but it's very dishonest. I always distrust one word quotes. They have no context, but where did you find the word "imitating" in my post? You say:

    Claiborne speculates "It was never OPCW's report, hidden or not. It was [signing author Ian] Henderson's report" deceptively "imitating" OPCW forms to make it look like theirs. 
    The closest I come to using your one-word quote is this:

    So, is it possible that “OPCW Sensitive” was created by Henderson to imitate an official OPCW confidentiality classification, without incurring the flack he might have gotten for using an official OPCW classification on a document that doesn't appear to be from the OPCW so much as it appears to be for the OPCW?
    A search of my piece won't find "imitating" in it. When you can't get a one-word quote right, you are really bad. Here is a 2-word, and a bunch of 1-word quotes from your piece. Accuracy guaranteed.



    Consider your word usage:

    "might have" 3 times

    "presume" 4 times

    "pressuming" 3 times

    "probably" 7 times

    "perhaps" 3 times

    "could"   9 times

    "maybe" 5 times 

    "may" 5 times

    "would" 15 times



    Your piece is full of presumptions and maybes. You would "probably" do better to stick to the facts, "maybe?" Do you really believe "the staging would also include dozens of bodies of civilians - including babies. These were murdered - probably elsewhere - and seem to be arranged at Location 2 after transport, probably via the underground tunnels that open near the site." Do you really believe that? Was it also that way for the children massacred by sarin in East Ghouta on 21 August 2019. Where they also killed elsewhere and brought in as props to frame Assad. Have you ever seen a CW attack in Syria that you blamed on the Syrians?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it's called considering details, and being honest. Some faith-based and fact-free tirades might avoid qualifiers lie that altogether.

      I've given my tohughts on your other questions all over. Sorry for the delay, barely time for this squirt of turnip blood for ya dumb beach

      Delete
  3. It seems to me you are taking it completely on faith that there is a document somewhere that this is an Executive Summary of. Frankly, I've had to deal with a lot of Executive Summaries in my life, but this business of stand-alone Executive Summaries is new to me, and as a rule I don't trust them. In my experience, the Executive Summary is but the first chapter to a much longer report that it is a part of. I tend to trust such Executive Summaries because 1) they are written by the same people who wrote the report being summarized, and 2) I have the full report to test their summations against at any point. When that is not the case, as with Bill Barr's "Executive Summary" of the Mueller Report, while he withholds the Mueller Report, my little fraud antennas go up. This so-called Executive Summary of the "Engineering Assessment of Two Cylinders Observed at the Douma Incident" comes to us without the actual "Engineering Assessment of Two Cylinders Observed at the Douma Incident." Are you sure that actually exists? How long is it? Has the OPCW seen it? Oh, but how rude of me! After criticizing you for speculating. I'm asking you to speculate more. Wouldn't it be nice to hear from the author himself? Where in the world is Ian Henderson?



    I would like to ask him those questions and more. I'd like to ask him about his unscientific method. Consider, his use of assumptions, i.e. maybes:

    7. Keeping the above in mind, an attempt was made to define a set of assumptions...
    And what does the OPCW say about assumptions:

    The analyses of the FFM are based on the facts and data collected and corroborated by the team and not on assumptions. (their emphsis]
    I could go on, but I'd just be repeat what I said in Lies, damned lies, and engineering sub-team reports One new thing, not in that piece having to do with the classification OPCW Sensitive.

    Google and of the 3 real classifications OPCW uses and you should get the following results:

    "opcw restricted" About 254 results (0.35 seconds)
    "opcw Protected" About 297 results (0.33 seconds)
    "opcw highly protected" About 247 results (0.45 seconds)
    Now, all of those don't represent documents with those classifications, some reference the Classification Handbook, now some even represent my piece, but most are OPCW docs that bare one of those classification, that has been declassified or leaked. Google "OPCW Sensitive" and you'll get 106 results - but they all point to Henderson's doc. My challenge to you- find another doc labeled "OPCW Sensitive" prior to Henderson's and I'll stop saying its a "classification" made up by him.

    Finally about my "sparsely-furnished mind." You only belittle yourselves with ad hominem attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The OPCW don't need "an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question" if 'fake', they can simply deny the report is anything to do with them. The report includes a unique photo that can only be one taken by the FFM inspectors:

      http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/04/douma-chemical-massacre-187-killed.html?showComment=1557830495176#c4273056717054812277

      Also Ian Henderson isn't a public figure, he isn't 'missing'. As if Google will find all of the OPCW's *internal* documents anyway, but there have also been claims he is 'just a consultant' - how do you know the header isn't internal to a consultancy with the entire document attached to other things? You can see the holes where staples were and have no idea how many 'official OPCW classifications' were also attached.

      As for assumptions, the FFM could not possibly conduct any analysis without them: someone *stole* the harness and fins before they arrived and the FFM + consulted experts *had* to make assumptions about the fill of the cylinder to model it (just as the Henderson report did).

      We have had "it was all wrong and rejected", "outside mandate and so referred" and now you saying it is fake. Could at least pick one and stick with it ffs.

      Delete
  4. Where did I use the word "fake"? Please quote the full sentence you are referring to so I can see if "fake" is your word or mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It seems to me you are taking it completely on faith that there is a document somewhere that this is an Executive Summary of"

      "Are you sure that actually exists? How long is it? Has the OPCW seen it?"

      An executive summary of a document that doesn't exist would be a fake whether or not you expressly use the word. If you are saying it is not a real internal document for the OPCW then it is, by definition, a fake.

      Delete
    2. I don't understand this whole thing. This is clearly a OPCW document, part of internal processes. The OPCW said this:
      "Per OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the Technical Secretariat. Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question. At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews."

      This is clear, they talk about "unauthorised release of the document". Probably its preparation was part of the work of the final report, and they decided to drop it completely, and very likely for "political" reasons. Now they try to obfuscate the matter with "minority opinion", or it was "rejected" and stuff like that. Or: Henderson was or was not member of the official FFM. Actually, it doesn't matter. You don't have to be an official member (not even an OPCW staffer) to contribute a report.

      As for a bit of a..licking, Caustic Logic did a great job discovering the likely internal processes how this particular report got suppressed. He compared what the OPCW said in July and in Dec. about the engineering stuff, and rightly thought that the Henderson report would've been the originally intended part for engineering but they didn't like the conclusion so they had to come up with something else.

      He also discovered that the final FFM report seems to argue against some points of Henderson, without clearly spelling out that they debate an alternative hypothesis. In this process they put in at least one point that almost only makes sense as an answer to the Henderson report, the scorching in the room (a point where Henderson was wrong). So the Henderson report did get included in a sense into the final FFM report. It's a bit like the German Umlaut where a now missing word final sound can be reconstructed because it "colored" the preceding vowels.

      Delete
    3. I'd still like to know what insight he has into internal OPCW documents, I thought he was going to qualify it all by being ex-OPCW not with a Google search

      "Talking points of war criminals":

      1. The point about helicopter height had already been made before the Russians presented their assessment
      2. The FFM moved the cylinder before the photos in A.6.5/A.6.8 and Henderson Appendix 1 Fig. 3 and these aren't public photos
      3. The OPCW trying to pretend that 'air drop' has no implication and that aircraft height and cylinder velocity aren't intrinsically linked is massively disingenuous

      Just finding videos of 'helicopters flying low' is meaningless here unless they are pushing gas cylinders out of the back:

      4. The cylinder idea relies on mechanical impact to work, a low height is detrimental to this
      5. Someone supposedly pushes this out of a hovering helicopter i.e. not flying past at high speed

      In addition to danger of being shot down, at 7:30pm in Douma it was:

      6. Dark
      7. A dust cloud
      8. Being broadcast live

      And:

      9. The FFM mention no testimony about seeing or hearing a helicopter at all, public testimony (in link) actually contradicts a helicopter being above the apartments
      10. The FFM's similar crater was there in 2017, damage to the roof above the balcony looks like it is too
      11. The victims (who JaI didn't let shelter in their tunnel network but care so deeply about) were even carried in the least dignified way possible
      12. 'Punishment' came before the investigation and all the other things that have happened

      None of it is a mad Russian conspiracy. "But Russia" I guess?

      Delete
    4. Still wondering what insight he has into internal OPCW documents, I thought he was going to qualify it all by saying he was ex-OPCW not with a Google search

      "Talking points of war criminals":

      1. The point about helicopter height had already been made before Russia presented their assessment
      2. The FFM moved the cylinder before the photos in A.6.5/A.6.8 and Henderson Appendix 1 Fig.3, they are not public
      3. The OPCW trying to pretend that 'air drop' has no implication and that aircraft height and cylinder velocity aren't intrinsically linked is massively disingenuous

      Just finding videos of 'helicopters flying low' is meaningless here because:

      4. The cylinder idea relies on mechanical impact to work, a low height is detrimental to this
      5. Someone supposedly pushes this out of a hovering helicopter "The choppers hover at around 2,000 metres, above small arms range, so the barrels can be dropped with pin-point accuracy." i.e. not flying past at high speed

      In addition to danger of being shot down, at 7:30pm in Douma it was:

      6. Dark
      7. A dust cloud
      8. Being broadcast live

      And:

      9. The FFM mention no testimony about seeing or hearing a helicopter at all, public testimony (in link) actually contradicts a helicopter being above the apartments
      10. The FFM's similar crater was there in 2017, damage to the roof above the balcony looks like it is too
      11. 'Punishment' came before the investigation and all the other things that happened


      None of which is some mad Russian conspiracy

      Delete
    5. Clay vs Clay

      https://twitter.com/clayclai/status/1136516855580020738

      "Just one will do to show the doc isn't phony."

      https://www.dictionary.com/browse/phony

      Delete
    6. the basic problem is Clay has almost zero knowledge yet somehow got riled up to come on the scene swinging randomly at every fly or dust mote or real clue he sees. Thanks for trying to untangle that here, guys. I just even noticed there ae comments. Should have guessed...

      Delete
  5. Alleged to be even higher here

    "chlorine barrel bombs are delivered almost exclusively via the Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF) fleet of Mi-8/17 transport helicopters."

    "Moreover, the introduction of man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) into rebel arsenals after 201311 induced regime pilots to overfly rebel airspace at increasingly higher altitudes. Regime pilots usually flew at least 3,000 meters overhead, further complicating the task of purely visual targeting (from such heights, munitions drop for 30 seconds)"
    https://www.gppi.net/media/GPPi_Schneider_Luetkefend_2019_Nowhere_to_Hide_Web.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  6. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/evidence-mounts-of-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria-a-968108.html

    "It appears that the wind has saved them, as well as the pilots' own fear. Indeed, they fly at a height of four kilometers (2.5 miles) in order to avoid getting shot down by the rebels, but this also makes the dropping of bombs very imprecise."


    https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/Fact_Finding_Mission/s-1230-2014_e_.pdf

    "These [helicopters] fly at high altitudes, as explained by interviewees, in order to stay out of the range of ground-based weapons."


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27180006

    "[Barrel bombs] were initially dropped from a low altitude, which afforded a reasonable degree of accuracy, but the possession of portable surface-to-air missiles by the rebels has forced the helicopters higher and any accuracy has disappeared."

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fcheckpoint%2fwp%2f2015%2f07%2f13%2fdropping-a-barrel-bomb-apparently-theres-an-app-for-it%2f%3f&utm_term=.22715fa3cd63

    (paywalled but maybe someone can read it)
    "at 5,000 meters — close to the maximum altitude of the aircraft to avoid air defenses"


    https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article122986245/Al-Barmil-Assads-perfide-Fass-Bombe.html

    "Die Bomben werden in der Regel aus großer Höhe abgeworfen (3000 Meter und mehr), um den Luftabwehrraketen und dem Maschinengewehrfeuer der Freien Syrischen Armee zu entgehen."

    Unless they have changed their minds on the allegations now? Can't find any low-level chlorine helicopter attacks, point me to them? Or perhaps you just have to believe there is somewhere safer than out of range of ground fire and better than high altitude to make such a method actually work

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Things like this:

      https://twitter.com/LinuxBeach/status/1137222078996856833

      are completely stupid. They clearly are not hovering and rolling cylinders on wheels out of the back here. You'd need to compare like with like- you wouldn't compare the height of a taxiing 747 and a plane over the Atlantic, the helicopter must be doing the same thing!

      Delete
    2. I was specifically looking for chlorine or 'chlorine barrel bombs' here, all these links are related (apart from maybe the paywalled one I can't check!) not just any helicopter dropping a "barrel bomb".

      Delete
    3. It seems there are lots of heroically brave people on the internet who apparently would happily fly a transport helicopter low over a hostile area to test whether the bombing has been effective, find out if enemy have helicopter threatening weaponry or how armoured the helicopter is. I wonder what they'd do as a pilot in reality.

      Delete
  8. Ted Postol
    http://accuracy.org/release/postol-on-syrian-attacks-opcw-guilty-of-deception/

    https://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2019/06/dr-ted-postol-rides-again-right-into.html

    "So, it seems that what they consider data isn't just information; like their own observations; interviews with witnesses, and data gained from “supposed experts,” but also the sources Dr. Ted left out, the “data” gathered from “spokespersons, the media, representatives of States Parties.” This sounds very much like a scientific method heavily polluted by political concerns."

    Oh dear. No they don't and it doesn't "seem" like they do, he quotes but hasn't even understood the Henderson document "The situation was also complicated by.." (and thinks the OPCW upload all of their internal documents to appear in Google search). But has diligently ignored all explanation - if e.g. I set up a consultancy that works on classified material and marks work for the OPCW "OPCW sensitive", he would brand it "phony" because he can't find it in Google..?! Bonkers.

    I did think Postol was stressing the qualifications of the *unknown* engineering team too much (on Scott Horton's show if I remember rightly)- unless he has info everyone else does not. Not sure how objective Postol really is given his ongoing spat with Bellingcat but still, interesting to read.

    ReplyDelete
  9. FWIW on cylinder volume:
    https://twitter.com/reallittleappl/status/1137214843214278656

    Looking into it found two things, a repair kit for 150lb cylinders that could accommodate a 35cm diameter cylinder (diameter used by 1 of 2 FFM diagrams and Henderson report so trusting that is accurate...) and that cylinder diameter didn't automatically indicate volume. So MichaKob's 150kg could well be right rather than a standard 150lb as I first thought (as does Russian assessment - if Micha's is an exact match, why Russia couldn't get specifications from stamp info is unknown). FFM could have actually clarified this, there are no indications that the Syrian gov. could not carry both cylinders out of their respective buildings and neither were so heavy they had to be left in situ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Postol's scaling needs to be adjusted as he uses 40cm diameter (which is understandable)

      Delete
  10. https://www.academia.edu/37650988/Improvised_chemical_munitions_in_Syria_January_2017-August_2018

    "It is possible, but unlikely, that they also function as suspension lugs, which would enable them to be carried externally by a range of fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. Whilst the available evidence is inconclusive, it appears that these munitions are not compatible with existing pylons, such as those used to carry FAB-series aerial bombs"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Odd that they'd bother to stick wheels on it when they had this "discarding release system" to use instead all along

      https://twitter.com/StillASuspect/status/1137364911300980742

      Has this ever been shown or mentioned anywhere in Syria? Bellingcat would have been all over it. Perhaps they are developing the devices backwards.

      Delete
    2. https://twitter.com/StillASuspect/status/1137387571271655424

      Perhaps not then, it sounded plausible and could exist somewhere - also never thought of combining wheels and hoops in one. I do like the idea that they had a better system but someone (focus group?) demanded the wheels instead.

      Equally, flying around at 150m would get caught on all those activist cameras and jihadist Go Pros I imagine?

      Delete
  11. https://twitter.com/ASpinOfTheWheel/status/1137947556309323776

    Does this 'K Johnson' genuinely have the qualifications he claims? Starting to seriously doubt

    https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1132584201922981891
    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1132288730218287104

    https://twitter.com/ASpinOfTheWheel/status/1137026072489472005

    A "wishful assumption" that is actually an allegation by everyone including witnesses to the OPCW (above). Studies say such cylinders cannot be and are not 'targeting' any one building. Who to believe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. General theme of just changing the allegations, making things up to fit (or just making things up full stop e.g. 'it was only chlorine all along', 'tumbling', 'not landing as described, shown and modelled by FFM expert.. but damage produced by that modelling is right' etc. I also find it hard to believe they have the expertise when they have seemingly zero comprehension skills and no decorum)

      https://twitter.com/PatrickHilsman/status/1138260807207280641

      FFM 8.62 "Additionally, a witness stated that six casualties died at Point One."

      And we know who claimed that:

      https://syriacivildefense.org/press-release/statement-about-chemical-attack-eastern-ghouta
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43697084

      "The Syria Civil Defence and SAMS"

      Delete
  12. One thing about Clay Claiborne - maybe the only opposition supporting research guy who created an ACLOS account - which I blocked at first, not realizing who it was. Apologies again! He weighed in re: Ghouta 2013, the family seen in situ, only ones, ran into an abandoned building and died. He might recall having no answer to our clear assessment those people had some bullet holes, several days of decay, meaning some of it PRIOR TO the blamed gas attack, mostly wore no shoes, yet have mostly dust free feet = didn't walk there in that dust = prob. carried and placed.

    The tunnels likely used in 2018 - some may have existed then, but no known relevance. No one else shown where found, only once gathered at morgues. 99% of body loading might be out back at gas chamber facilities they didn't show. The gas chambers in Kafr Batna though - seen, during the air-scrubbing afterwards, as Denis O'Brien noted. FWIW we have visual minimum 300+ bodies geolocated in E. Ghouta, and I suspects its 500+, possibly even 1,000+. It was some deal to mark one year of Obama's red line offer, and a day since the arrival of the UN-OPCW investigators Damascus had requested back on March 20, that he must've wanted desperately to distract from a probe of events in Khan al-Assal, and to use the same impure sarin to do it with. Yep... don't pause to think that one through.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For posterity, the Director General of the OPCW saying document is genuine
    https://twitter.com/HRIMark/status/1138527955926310913

    Whatever they claim, JaI and friends cared so little about these people that they weren't sheltering in the large tunnel network and then the bodies were carried like this:
    https://twitter.com/AsaadHannaa/status/1115209717180190721

    And treated them like this:
    https://www.instagram.com/p/BqqF7GsBduF/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. was just discussing their dirty hands, feet and clothes and how little sense that makes. They were sheltering inside with plumbing, living life up to then, presumably. And once they're dying from mystery gas, they go to the nearest sink and wash themselves. So big on washing they'd rather do this than escape and maybe live.

      But aside from their clean and damp faces and hair, most of these folks spent the preceding days at least never washing up. Those days were not spent at Location 2, at liberty.

      But a few were cleaner … the one family with common hygiene sense? Or the few kept in better conditions, just kidnapped the day before, etc.?

      Delete
    2. Well... according to Nasr Hanan and "Abu Mohammad" at least. And all crammed into only 2 out of 7 apartments to wash ignoring the visible (FFM 8.61) "cloud witnessed ... on the ground floor of Location 2." that moments before they had been running away from.

      Possibly no water on tap (even with plumbing)
      1:28 https://news.cgtn.com/news/7963544f7a454464776c6d636a4e6e62684a4856/share_p.html
      https://youtu.be/sexIs8a_nus?t=169

      Someone undoing their pants mid-washing and mid-dropping dead... or the belt snapped while being used to lift the body https://youtu.be/DfQiFEyin_4?t=3

      "I instructed that, beyond the copy that would exclusively be kept by the FFM, the staff member be advised to submit his assessment to the IIT"

      So it was the Director General himself who ordered the Henderson report referred (or has the job of damage control...), do you think he checks all the expert reports or just the politically embarrassing ones?

      Delete
  14. The vast majority of us have an enthusiasm for driving. Nonetheless, with tight guidelines set up, it is regularly considered as an advantage. deiver's license Since you own the vehicle doesn't mean you can take off. Regardless of whether you have a SUV, hatchback, or car, you need a driving permit to work an engine vehicle.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The vast majority of us have an enthusiasm for driving. Nonetheless, with tight guidelines set up, it is regularly considered as an advantage. deiver's license Since you own the vehicle doesn't mean you can take off. Regardless of whether you have a SUV, hatchback, or car, you need a driving permit to work an engine vehicle.

    ReplyDelete

Comments welcome. Stay civil and on or near-topic. If you're at all stumped about how to comment, please see this post.