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.

Monday, March 16, 2020

More on Al-Lataminah, 30-3-17

Re-Considering the IIT's Nine Unsolved CW Cases
More on Al-Lataminah, 30-3-17
March 16, 2020
typos + cleanup, dated updates, March 19, 2020


There were several lesser points about Philip Watson's M4000 research I didn't finish writing up after three posts dealt with a serious issue and two egregious clusters of error. Among those left off, two at least deserve mention for general interest, and one of them merits this post that could include them both. Both points relate to the 30 March, 2017 alleged sarin attack in al-Lataminah that displayed the alleged weapon best (maybe too well). First the other issue, then the one on unusually rectangular debris.

Sarin in the Wrong "Crater"?
A recent and informative update from the Working Group on Syria Propaganda and Media included a positive reference to this claim (I'm a member, but wasn't consulted on this, or I probably would have prevented it):*
"Another commentator has noted anomalies in the published report of the FFM on the alleged incident in Ltamenah on 30 March 2017: no explanation was given for the detection of sarin in samples of gravel provided by the White Helmets that were purportedly recovered from a “crater” containing no munition fragments some 200 metres south of the alleged impact point."
http://syriapropagandamedia.org/update-on-the-opcws-investigation-of-the-douma-incident

* 3-19: "probably would have prevented" - that's been called petty, as if I'd force a rejection of Watson's valid work. To clarify: If I were asked, I'd point out early on (as I did later and do again below) the assumption behind that point was unfounded. Then I reasoned they would agree the point wasn't as solid as it seemed, and considering just the one specific point was raised about that alleged attack, they would "probably" (as I put it) include a different leading point instead of that inconclusive one, or maybe include no examples at all. If they had picked another finding from Watson that seemed correct, I wouldn't have complained. But "that's not how it went down, man." I just like to get things right, and for those around me and groups I'm in and as many people as possible to get it right. end add.

First, I just noticed he's got the scene wrong, with "withered grass crater" set about 60 meters north of "debris collection area" where "first debris" landed (after some flight, but clustered and landing arguably backwards?). They're actually the one and same spot, as Michael Kobs and I and others had geolocated it (where a truck parks at a faint cross road just south of three taller trees along the edge of the western fields). The following shows this (middle) compared to OPCW FFM (left) and Watson (right). The other location in consideration here is "crater" per FFM, at the bottom of their image, also indicated by Watson, not in those by Kobs and I (smaller area focus).
FFM map and other points cited in this post can be seen in this report: 
S/1548/2017, 2 November 2017

Another set of images to clarify this cross-road is the location of the kicked-up soil, blackened vegetation, and debris recovery - see how it's pretty much in the middle of that dirt road sloping down on the right (and that item boxed in red is the FFM's item 08SDS, apparently the base of the binary weapon's "mixing arm"):


That makes the distance between craters about 140 meters - still too far for sarin to fly. But was sarin found at the other crater?

The “crater” - where one of three conventional bombs presumably impacted - is placed by Watson unclearly "between 160 and 290 yards south from the “impact point” and its associated debris" (146-165m). And he read how "gravel from crater" tested positive for sarin as well, despite it having no sarin bomb impact alleged. That would be interesting, but probably isn't.

Watson cited the OPCW FFM report S/1548/2017, noting how this "is the only location in their report that is referred to as a “crater”" - he thinks without a single exception, and therefore a major deception is suggested in its "TABLE 2: SAMPLES AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM DESIGNATED LABORATORIES." Sarin and common breakdown products found in and near "crater" must mean in the wrong spot, so likely planted! For some realism, they planted it at least to 50 meters out too.
https://www.hiddensyria.com/2019/09/05/opcw-ffm-willing-dupes-at-lataminah-again/


I wouldn't be so sure. In fact, I find it much more likely they got this from the usual spot that's not USUALLY called "crater" - though it is one - and in the assembly of that table, it was given, UNUSUALLY, as "crater." Has that been somehow ruled impossible? As I'll show below, that wouldn't be the only contradiction between the text and the tables in this same report.

A simple imprecision with terminology would mean nothing's amiss on that point, and still the sarin may have been planted there - it won't be that easy to prove.

Add 3-19: One more re-consideration of the suggested ironclad rule that "crater" always means the other spot and the spot w/sarin and bomb parts is always called "impact point," even in the report's tables. "Impact point" appears just once in the full report, indeed relating to the sarin impact point. "Crater" appears just 2 times, in two references to the same sample - in the applicable table 2 and table A3.1. Can the rule be seen there? No. Soil and gavel samples have these given locations:
- "under metal piece" x 5
- "crater" x 1
- "50 m away" (from crater?) x 1
- unspecified x 3
- "impact point" = 0

If that rule really applies, the report would also suggest there were no samples taken at the sarin impact point, or it somehow went unspecified, while the locales proving a deception WERE specified. That's possible, but kind of odd. end add.

Rectangular Debris
= Fake?
On to the more interesting point. Watson on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/PhilipWatson_/status/1183188233305411586
"And those straight, almost perfect, edges! Only bomb explosions in #Syria create them! All part of an upcoming report." This issue emerges mainly with debris found after the same incident - Al-Lataminah, 30-3-17. The debris has been fairly well identified as likely from a M4000 chemical bomb once stockpiled by the Syrian military. That's not a certain ID, and there are differences from a published schematic, but it's still likely enough. And it seems that was designed for binary use (precursors can be held separately inside and mixed to produce sarin just before use), contrary to Watson's assertions. (Since then, officially, Syria has foresworn chemical weapons, given up its sarin-production capabilities, and destroyed its related weapons or - as is the case with the M4000 - re-purposed them to hold conventional explosives, for use in fighting the foreign-backed insurgents then occupying much of Syria).
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/10/m4000-id-structural-questions.html
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/10/m4000-binary-or-unitary.html

Watson's tweet noted the rectangularity issue with fragment 07SDS, the one filler cap (of two found) that's on an almost perfectly rectangular fragment. In fact some pieces show multiple straight edges, all parallel and perpendicular, with numerous perfect right angles shown. He doesn't specify what to make of it, but the reader could easily slip to imagining Islamists with hacksaws cutting up the bomb up into squares, maybe just so they can be stacked in a box during transport to the locale, with no care if it makes sense.

I would only be slightly surprised to learn they were this stupid. But here, I don't suppose so. The straight edges coexist with rough ones and with severe bending, as if they had been through the detonation of a bomb with partially self-segmenting skin. First, all the possible illustrations of this among the debris.

Note on dates received: the repot says samples were handed to FFM on 17 July and then 17 August. The table listing them, however, gives no August dates, instead giving 17 and 18 July as the two dates. It's not clear if the 18/7 or 17/8 date is correct, but two consecutive days makes more sense than two days a month apart, and this seems like someone's dyslexic slip, and a contradiction between the table and the report text - where the table seems more likely to be correct.

07SDS
"Metal piece" received 17/7
"The metal plate to which it is attached is roughly 5 mm thick and is ruptured on all sides. One side has a very straight cut." Fill port cap, seen here from the inside. It's about 19 cm along its straight-cut side (using the ruler from one photo on another), so about 190mm. Width: at least 135mm with an unclear far edge.


11SDS
"Metal piece" received 17/7
This displays that square-ness to an even higher degree. These generic slats (with traces of app. dark green paint) are thinly connected to each other on one side, and otherwise hanging loose with NINE right angles and NINE very straight sides between them. The FFM report gives a 5mm thickness (as the M4000's skin seems to be), and each piece measured at "approximately 180 to 200 mm" long, with a total width at the connected end of about 320 mm. The outer two slats are 180mm long, while the middle one is longer (200mm) and narrower) - (maybe 120mm for the two and 80mm for the middle one?). This was likely part of the outer skin, wrapping around 1/4 to 1/5 of the bomb's circumference, wherever the blast damage might be lesser (tail end?).


10SDS
"Four metal pieces" received 17/7 - these are warped, separate, looking perhaps thinner than the usual, but that might be a visual trick, and they all have roughly the same, uniform size. At least 4 notably straight edges are seen between them, with a couple others likely, if too distorted to call.
update 3-19: 10SDS probably doesn't play in. As the FFM's report explains: "10SDS comprises four smaller metal pieces. Less rust is visible than on the other items. Fragments are grey with sharp twisted parts and are made of thinner material than most of the other items. The deformations indicate that explosion has torn them off of a larger system. Although the flat lines on the sides, together with the general shape and thickness, indicate that these items could potentially be a part of the tailfin assembly, the exact origin of this part could not be determined."

04SDS(B)
(is there a 04SDS(A)?) "Metal piece" received 18/7 (meaning 17/8?).
Taken as a section of nosecone ballast (heavy material, gentle curve of outer surface) "04SDS(B) consists of very thick, heavy metal part and another thinner part, which looks like it is been partially peeled off the main body. The items are heavily corroded with dark discoloration on one side." Seen here from three angles (not three pieces, as I had once thought). It's not as clear if this plays in - the ballast seems to have broken on a clean line, but that's another issue. The small piece of metal peeled back might did the same, but I'm not sure what that originally was. It seemed worth including.


12SDS: received 17/7.
The "curved rail" or "partly straightened ring" has on one side, as the FFM describes it "an attached layer of metal, which is approximately 5 mm thick," meaning outer skin. This - perhaps being small parts of 2 rectangular tiles - is shown below marked in green (the larger one extends past the edge and was bent over). There's also a thin rib of metal down its length where other 5mm thick rectangles of the stuff had torn free from either side, on edges just that straight. Note this image just show the thickness of the plates, not their span over the bomb's surface. And note this curved section seems to be the original shape - less distorted, it retains broken bolts and these outer skin remnants. The straightened part seemingly lost all that in its greater distortion.

= CW Weapon?
To me that makes the issue pretty clear. Chemical weapon munitions are often designed to perforate evenly under low pressure, so the chemicals can be released with a minimal opening charge - some blast is needed to expel and spread out the payload, but too much of a blast would destroy most agents.

I'm pretty sure I read about that somewhere, but I can't relocate where at the moment. And I've seen it.  Even the improvised "Volcano" rockets used in 2013's Ghouta attack, for example, had a huge, undivided, bulk-fill payload tank made of long panels the just peel away upon impact (best example: see entry for Daraya, 1-4-2013 here or cropped at right - I later learned the scene is even earlier, Dec. 26, 2012). The apparent vapor here could be simple steam from residual impact heat in the winter cold, or might be more relevant, I'm not sure.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2017/11/black-sarin.html

In other cases (Adra, Ghouta), we see tankless tubes and crumpled slats laying loose, telling the same story. Here following Ghouta 21-8-13 we see some crumpled at the feet of a UN-OPCW inspection team member collecting samples that would test positive. These rockets aere fired fom nearby rebel-held territory, where Syrian troops had been attacked with sarin just three days after the Ghouta attack.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/02/mapping-sarin-related-activity-in-jobar.html


Add 3-19: we should note this rocket was apparently not designed AS a chemical weapon; the less controversial alleged uses of them by Syrian military and allied forces is for conventional high explosives or fuel-air weapons. The latter has a similar principle to CW dispersal, using a lightly ejected cloud of fuel
vapor that's then ignited. I'm still no expert here, but I'd say the slat design goes with that idea that could be useful to deliver sarin. Also note the following is just my limited reading, poorly put as it was ("would" instead of "could" etc.)


In the case of the supposed M4000 sarin bomb, the design, apparently, is to break into rectangles like the ones seen, set at nice rounded 10mm intervals, with 180-190-200 being common plate lengths, 80, 120, 140 being other dimensions, based on where the plate seams came relative to bomb features, like fill port caps. This would, in my limited but decent understanding, make the weapon used a chemical munition, if not the M4000 itself.

And of course it's still likely these fragments were planted, perhaps after being recovered from another use with conventional explosives some time ago This would explain the small size, small number, and melted-twisted nature of the recovered fragments, besides their apparent advanced age-related corrosion, far better than the accepted narrative does.

26 comments:

  1. Totally agree- the labels, duplicate references and dates make me think all these are best explained as FFM mistakes. 18 July would be someone fixing the duplicates the next day (creating sample codes ending "(B)") then 17 August a typo or misreading of 18/7.

    No Sentry Syria messages at all between 4:25 and 6:17am and no messages about any aircraft near Latamneh.

    It looks like the hospital used paper records. Although I do wonder if that varies with some types of patient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you'd think so, but I forgot, the collection dates were given as July 5 AND 30, and therefore they got some in August as well. That was almost in the same sentence, so I should've noticed. So unless they made that up, those dates are right, and the table's dates … set by someone who thought the same as we did? or whatever. Mino point.

      Delete
    2. That part also says "the initial environmental samples were collected the day following the alleged incident" but SPC video of the collection was uploaded that same day. July 30 - some confusion with receipt of blood and hair samples taken the day before?

      Delete
    3. https://citizenevidence.amnestyusa.org/ is not working fo me, but let's say it was uploaded just before midnight California time on the 30th (of March) - that could be as late as 10 AM on the 30th in Syria, probably somewhat earlier. With quick edits, it could easily fit.

      Delete
    4. That page is broken for me too. Another via someone from Bellingcat:
      https://mattw.io/youtube-metadata/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dpq_Ne3CnkKA&submit=true

      Says "publishedAt": "2017-03-30T16:36:03.000Z" (Z=UTC so published on the evening of March 30 Damascus time).

      Delete
    5. ok, that would be an issue. Amnesty's thing works for me now, and says the same - 16:36:03. I hear about a separate glitch causing times one day off - but that applied to 2014, and hasn't been a big issue since then, so I guess this is a discrepancy. Collection on the day of, not day after.

      Images from that were on Twitter by 11:17 am on the 30th (on my end) = 9:17 PM in Syria if 10 hours ahead
      https://twitter.com/microsyria/status/847513091214417921

      But Sentry Syria seems 9 hours off - DST?
      two entries shortly before these first words:
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847354622981267456
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847354622981267456
      9:45am a done was circling, 9:47 a Russian jet was circling, both "2 seconds ago" and 3 hours after the jet attack they didn't report. On my end times are 12:45 and 12:47 AM. So we add 9?

      First reports around
      1:04 AM = 10:04 am - just minutes after SS noted that activity:
      "Cases of civilian suffocation as regime drops toxic gas in missiles via airstrikes on Al-Lataminah in NW rural #Hama"
      https://twitter.com/FSAPlatform/status/847358906129039361
      1:26 AM = 11:26 AM local
      "Dozens of cases of poisonous gas (likely sarin) have reached medical points after targeting the regime in the northern Hama countryside."
      https://twitter.com/khtabyhor/status/847364282945753088

      Or shortly before:
      12:59 AM = 10:59 AM, Mar 30, 2017.
      "Helicopter targets an area al-Zuwar With explosive cylinders containing poisonous chlorine gas Northern rural Hama."
      https://twitter.com/ShamnaNews/status/847357535950524416
      https://twitter.com/omaralhaj15/status/847357608117780488
      (this was said to be 3 km south of Lataminah, later said also hit with sarin, no details)

      SMART news says Lataminha by 9:00 am
      https://twitter.com/SMARTNewsAgency/status/847342690840662017

      9:17 Zuwar+LAtaminah https://twitter.com/journalhader/status/847347060323909633

      8:48, Lataminah only - by # The Syrian Popular Movement
      https://twitter.com/spm_syria/status/847339852878168065

      That's the earliest I could find, 2-3 hours after the event, an hour before the SS tweets. Some clinic videos appear about 11:30. Several searches in English and Arabic, and I didn't find any postings of that video to check when it was first tweeted.

      Delete
    6. I find this useful (UTC+converts to your local time)
      https://oduwsdl.github.io/tweetedat/

      Sentry Syria definitely has local time in the tweets. (Link for 9:45am? - https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847354201868910592 )






      Delete
    7. oops - that was https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847354201868910592

      others closest in time:
      4:25: A Russian warplane was seen in Khan Sheikhoun flying Northeast 3 seconds ago
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847273591192248325

      6:25: A Russian warplane was seen in the visit, flying in a circular motion, two seconds ago
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847303739031535617
      (visitors = al-Zuwar, 3km south of Lataminah, but this is al-Ziyara - الزيارة - only found easily way north, south of Jisar al-Shughour)
      http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.688742&lon=36.338053&z=14&m=w&search=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9

      6:54: A Russian warplane was seen in Jabal Al Zawia, flying Northeast 3 seconds ago
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847310971500507136
      7:27: A Russian warplane was seen in Jabal Al Akrad circling in a circle about two seconds ago
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847319428937023488
      (further out/unclear areas)

      7:43 pm: A drone helicopter was seen in Halfaya flying in a circular motion a second ago
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847323464423755776

      skipping a few
      9:29: A drone helicopter was seen at Hama Military Airport, flying north about 3 seconds ago
      https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/847350005526548480

      Delete
    8. Checked solar angles in sampling video - not that clear with overcast, but the lit faces on the pickup suggest sunlight is roughly up the road from south, a bit from the west - azimuth a bit past 198.
      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/
      if I did it right gives 198 passed at 12:18 PM, so it may be 12:20 or as late as 12:45. Just 6 hours after the alleged attack, suits zipped up or not is a bigger deal than I had thought. Still not big enough to prove anything significant like no sarin.

      Delete
    9. Also (I'm sure already mentioned) the AJ Mubasher video also shows that the suits weren't considered that important for interviews by or just standing right next to the crater. Despite the area around it apparently covered in/killed by sarin.

      https://imgur.com/OZRWOO3

      Delete
  2. Mr Watson has responded to this by the way:
    https://twitter.com/PhilipWatson_/status/1240056104299741185

    If people want to believe the White Helmets faked a sarin crater but then planted bomb parts and killed the grass in an entirely different location next to a different crater..?
    https://twitter.com/PhilipWatson_/status/1240056117755097094

    At the same time, the FFM are hiding samples.. but are so honest they add a map showing the 'sarin' crater is contradictory to everything else?
    https://twitter.com/PhilipWatson_/status/1239285501389127681

    The mistake here is that gravel ~50m north of the "crater" label is also ~50m south of the "debris collection area" label.

    There are multiple craters, this is supposedly the third of "four air delivered munitions" and Kayyal says the WHs sampled two sites (two craters as on video).

    For the record -
    https://twitter.com/PhilipWatson_/status/1240056121349623814 - the "mistake" comment was mine. A=Andrew not Adam. I also sometimes argue with Bellingcat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies, I forgot- http://archive.is/LURko

      Also the assumption that the sign shown even relates to 31SLS or that the sampling of 31SLS even appeared on video etc.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that - I can see if I log out, but that saved a hassle. As my reply will be for all/the record, new comment below.

      Delete
  3. but first: if it is 50 M north, mmmaybe. That ~50 both ways loses ~40 meters in the middle. And unless "crater" has 2 meanings in consecutive lines in that table, there's sarin ~140 m south of the right spot as well, so that doesn't seem to go anywhere in my rushed review.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I argue it isn't a mix up at all." Yeah, well that's an argument then, not a fact, which he posed it as.

    Hazmat suits used there - worth considering. That might suggest there was sarin, that they worried there was, wanted to suggest to us that there was, etc. That's the problem w/things like this - there are so many possibilities, you can rarely (legitimately) get the narrowed down proven fraud this Watson guy is so good at finding waaay too often.
    I don't ague "the "Crater" was actually the impact site." To be clear it's not what anything IS but what it's referred to as. He has the ironclad rule "crater" can NEVER apply to the cater w/known sarin. That's just not a real bound on things.
    And to clarify: I admit if I didn't well enough already that h might have that right and sarin WAS found at the wrong place. That's just not poven, and I kond of doubt it.
    No wonder he has me blocked and only talks third person (not that we ever did communicate - this is fine). He could just admit "ok, a mix-up is also possible." But he argues the one argument, and "this is the guy..." who uses sarcasm quite often. He could find dozens of such illogical "admissions" contrary to all my actual work. And that's ANOTHER example of why this guy is just too "good" at this sleuthing business.

    And true to form, he's done so much amazing sleuthing already, he's done tuckered out, plans not to revisit these points - when the only thing he could do is admit they COULD have just used the word crater to describe both craters, or deepen his ignorance display by explicitly denying that yet again. In the end, that's all I sad on the subject. It was good enough to spur whoever to ask, and I expect they're disappointed with the answer. (unless his spin was adequate to distract from the maneuver).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To his credit though and complicating my lingering suspicions a bit, Watson does acknowledge he was wrong to but the withered vegetation crater in its own spot, agreeing that is the same spot the FFM mapped and seen on video. Maybe he is trying but just can't see the other point?

      Delete
    2. and that sarcasm wasn't even sarcasm - it was my rendering of someone else's thinking, slightly parody-style. Glad he thinks it's a stupid theory, and … did he really miss that? Most observers won't. Strategically it's not a good move. Again, maybe he really is trying here and just not seeing a lot.

      Delete
  5. Admittedly, ~50m might not be exact but is their "50m away" accurate anyway? Who knows. No FFM map for any of those April samples (not a comprehensive or accurate map for 07SDS) and no sampling video to check that I know of - they're only shown digging in the garbage-hill crater by the vegetation.

    Watson says the label isn't a mistake (or the image presumably) but that the pin is (mistakenly?) in the wrong place. Which seems a bit selective about which parts can be considered a mistake by the FFM. As Micha points out here, south is another equally small crater? That somehow all the news agencies knew not to bother to film too closely.

    I'm not sure why Watson didn't ask himself why the White Helmets would not simply put the parts by the correct crater? Or if the FFM is so crooked (something not backed up by their vague conclusion btw), they could simply cover up the mistake by fixing their map? Like Postol and his plumes/damage mismatch, the nefarious scheme has got to make sense in the first place.

    In any case, I'm not convinced there are 5 red signs for sample locations #40-44, it seems to me they just move around and put signs down where there is a camera:

    https://imgur.com/hQ22Nb7

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr Morad died in 2019 "from an illness which was exacerbated by the chemical exposure".
    https://twitter.com/amoouleh/status/1246451518208913408

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course, sarin is well known to exacerbate throat cancer (not, and presuming)

      Delete
    2. Dr Morad's 'dead boy' Warda (delivered by friend Abboud Albakri who presumably knew her name and gender - is not the White Helmet in videos by the way, I found some better footage of that man and now think the White Helmet must be a relative) appears in the White Helmets video:

      https://twitter.com/SyriaCivilDef/status/1246905079191539712
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3dPoXKgjU

      Had a look through the lists but I don't know who "Amourah" (Sayed?) is.

      Delete
  7. So it looks like Hasna and friends provided something for Latamneh because those SU-22s are not on Sentry Syria. The list in Annex 2 #2 reminded me that GPPi were another possible for Bellingcat-esque consultation.

    "President [REDACTED]".. well that will help with anonymity won't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A few (not exhaustive) thoughts

      FFM S/1548/2017

      Annex 4 #8 the fuse "is used on a large number of aerial bomb types by numerous nations"

      IIT S/1867/2020

      9.20 and 9.21 state it is "more than likely" from an M4000. But decides 02SDS from the same place is from a different bomb. So they have parts from a bunch of different bombs yet the "universal bomb fuze" .. isn't. "Consistent with" has become "unique to"

      9.19 "Fragments were located in close vicinity to the impact point, up to a distance of approximately 50 metres from the crater."

      Which clears that up.. and still doesn't explain the AWOL parts for Khan Sheikhoun.

      7.31 says someone sampled and filmed that bubbling black crater on March 26. And then mentioned it to... no-one at all? Sent the video to nobody? Are they joking?

      7.14 "The casualties included ... armed group fighters"

      FFM S/1636/2018

      5.20 "The physician reported treating 16 civilians at the hospital" - so the physician is a liar. Good to know.

      I'm unclear why the IIT are trying to "reconstruct" the chain of custody for samples too. Isn't that something the FFM should have done already? 7.31 helpfully shows that sometimes the FFM doesn't bother to list all the samples they have (Douma!).

      Delete
    2. 7.19 "The IIT assessed all six metal pieces retrieved from the crater"

      SDS29 is described by FFM as "Metal piece of munition from the crater"

      7.25 "Some of its measurements lower the possibility that this is part of a chemical aerial bomb from the stockpile of the Syrian Arab Republic"

      ..so not an M4000 but they used chain of custody as an excuse to ignore. Why then did the FFM present table 3 in their report showing sarin related chemicals on metal parts with a chain of custody the IIT cannot then confirm? Also 07SDS seen inside the crater, a different place to the FFM map.. but is accepted.

      7.27 "the IIT considered only one remnant received by the FFM (SDS28) for the purpose of its investigation on the identification of perpetrators for this incident"

      Where is the rest of the bomb? What are these other non-matching parts doing in "the crater"?

      7.29 04SDS now originates "from the area of the crater of 24 March 2017". So the FFM just threw in some parts ~500m away for March 30 and neglected to mention it? Or IIT's report is garbage.

      08SDS:

      11.4 "outer body of the part of the mixing paddle system was fractured open"

      9.26 "This fragment was also considered of particular interest, as any substance found inside would have been protected from degradation and cross-contamination."

      Protected by the outer body which is "fractured open"? It had grease inside but.. so what?

      Delete
    3. I wonder who took the 01SLS sample in 7.31 too - the White Helmets delivered other Latamneh soil samples for March 30 in April. Why not this one if they took it in March?

      And if sampled by the White Helmets, why not test this- something dubious about it? Or someone else did it? And where was it between March and mid-August?

      And why does the FFM report not mention receiving this sample only those in Feb 2018? The closest the FFM gives for 12 August is that 17 August 2017 (relating to apparently nothing) in the report for March 30. It all seems a shambles.

      Delete
  8. More (probably rhetorical) questions:

    If White Helmets collected 04SDS in that area, why collect and deliver only that one part, not the rest? Unless the FFM report's 6.5 is just a lie and they had no idea where samples were collected.

    How do these Su-22's not create messages on Sentry Syria's automated system? Hours later, Shayrat and Su-22s *do* appear. In fact, is this the IIT's "5:45" but they haven't adjusted it to local time?

    https://twitter.com/Sentry_Syria/status/845149942012243968
    http://archive.is/LL3Ub
    https://oduwsdl.github.io/tweetedat/#845149942012243968

    7.24 "The fragment [SDS28] was assessed as originating from the nose part of an air-delivered munition."

    "Its geometry was compared with drawings of parent air-delivered chemical munitions."

    Again in 7.29 "highly likely to be part of the nose cone of an aerial bomb." - not aerial chemical bomb.

    7.28s "flat metal part with holes" - was this even ever received by the FFM? Are those two parts are unique to an M4000 or even an aerial chemical bomb?

    ReplyDelete

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