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

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2017/en/s-1548-2017_e_.pdf

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.

M4000 Distraction, point 3: The Curved Rail

October 20, 2019

An in-progress article on Philip Watson's M4000 Distraction got entirely too bloated. Two compound points - 2 and 3 - having sub-sections to detail a cluster of related bad thinking, so they require their own posts. Point 1 on binary sarin and the M4000 also deserves a post and, being its own issue as well, already got that over here. I'm not going to re-name that, but it serves as the split-off exploration behind what becomes point 1 in the M4000 Distraction's list of 13 points of issue. (and note not all 13 are negative - one is fairly positive and a couple are kind of neutral)

The final will include a link to here and a summary of the following under point 3. This dedicated space also allows for any rebuttal or revisions, etc. that I can also consider for the summary.

3) The curved rail

3a The 45° angle "claim" ...

This is another rather stupid point as he should realize by now, but Watson just said he plans to include this point again in his part 4 "Lataminah: Rails, Caps and the M4000" where he'll argue about five things not lining up, be wrong about 4 and the other is of no importance (prediction). But I'm not entirely sure he will plow ahead with this running claim: Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins is a fool for "claiming a 45° angle" in a rail of metal "became a 90° curvature after an impact" in this scrap linked to the Latanmah incident. (tweet) An archived copy below (prior account). 

I don't think Higgins ever did answer, which might leave it seeming like a great question. And as Watson notes, this "rail" is not included in Forensic Architecture modeling for Bellingcat (an issue discussed below), so one would have to visualize the issue on their own. Watson did it very poorly.

As far as I can see, Higgins and/or a graphics assembler at Bellingcat "claimed" the angle became a curve with a box drawn on a graphic. As I'll explain, this never did indicate a straight or angled object. No one ever "said" that in any form. Watson misread a graphic as saying this, and nothing more. He presumed the diagram meant to indicate a long beam along the bottom including the marked bend (roughly in the bent green box in my graphic). But logically, they meant to indicate a circular member (yellow box) that's only indicated at its end (because there its thickness or cross-section is drawn in?). Below, right, a crude drawing tries to over-illustrate the point. See also a 3-D modeled view below.

In case anyone still wonders, it also makes no sense to have a bolted seam along the underside of the chemical tank. That should be welded sealed at all points.

Bellingcat had always described the thing better than that graphic showed it; "metal supports run the circumference of the bomb casing [not the length of it - ed], and one of these metal supports was recovered at Al-Lataminah," shown as the partly circular item in question. He probably saw that, and just dismissed as not their REAL claim, which he already confused himself into ferreting out. Furthermore, researcher Michael Kobs brought it up right away when the issue was first raised in 2018: "This piece is meant to be a ring of the 1.44m circumference..." But Watson rejected that as NOT Higgins' claim or meaning, so not relevant. Then I mentioned it again after seeing this bad reading still used a good clue in his new project. That was almost a year later, but I quoted that "circumference" part as a refresher. He replied "I've no idea of your point Adam, sorry." tweet).
3b ...that trumps all other claims...
When I asked Watson if anyone had tried to explain this before, he acknowledged "They have said it was many things. First Higgins claimed it was a "cross section" to connect the payload body to nose cone. Then Robert Trafford of Forensic Architecture rubbish that saying it was a connecting brace for tail fin. Now it's something else." I'm not sure what "else" it was now, but the prior 2 things are actually, as far as I can tell, two of 3 things it could be, if it's even part of this bomb:

1) the circular band connecting the nose assembly (the square-ish gray shape inside the red indicated corner is a cross-section of that band.) Said to be Higgins claim.

2) the same thing but at the back of the payload tank, attaching the tail assembly, as modeled to pretty convincing effect, IMO. Said to be FA/Trafford view, also shown in Bellingcat graphic

3) and this is intriguing - it could be the middle ring that's meant to hold the dividing plate when one is using the M4000 in its designed, binary mode. I imagine it goes in the slot formed by the ring's unusual shape, as I show here with a red line.

That's not very many things really, when we recall that the 4th "claim" of the bent rail that trumps them all is totally imagined. I consider all three of these possible, and would even add a 4th category for other (but not a bent rail - let's keep at it no one claiming this ever). Watson might find that self-contradictory to consider 4 options, considering how he took options 1 and 2 as exclusive and contradictory answers from a regime-change camp in total disarray.

Back to option 3. If the bomb is re-purposed for unitary fill, be it chemical or conventional explosives, I reason, this divider can also be skipped and its anchoring ring ignored (just like the mixing arm, and whichever of the two fill ports is less convenient). I've been going over this with Michael Kobs, who favors that view, and has leads on the shape of the object seen suggesting it's this middle ring, not one from either end. (so via Kobs or however, that might be the "something else" it's been called). I like where he's is going, and he has a good record. I plan to catch up on that soon.

I had some further thoughts premised on no broken bolts or none torn free. Then I noticed (with the FFM's help) some holes are bit distorted, 3 seem to have broken bolts inside. S/2017/931, Note by the (OPCW) Technical Secretariat, 6 Nov. 2017 (PDF):
"12SDS is similar to a metal rail, approximately 550 mm long, with a square shaped cross section.  It is heavily corroded with eight equally distributed holes visible on one side and traces of grey colour.  Some of the holes still contain broken bolts inside." Indeed, the 3 inside the curve are intact. Such weak bolts (are they even metal?) could be why we see none tearing of the rail.

The two end rings have to be bolted to the nose and tail assemblies for the thing to fall right, or even look right. The middle ring may stay bolt-free if it's in unitary mode and no plate needs held. But that's not certain, and those are the thoughts going forward, where I so far hold any 3 of those is possible, besides for good measure "other."
3c ...and better explains the straight part anyway...
Forensic Architecture responded to Watson's approach about this curved rail they didn't model. One of them even made special slides to illustrate the point for him. One shows how the ring (outlined in light orange) would attach at the back end, which he uses as a banner on his "deception" articles, and which I show below.

He took the images with thanks but contested the assessment; "that piece of metal shows no signs of having ever been the circular shape FA were suggesting it was." Except of course for now, when there's that "almost perfect 90° curvature" he found so laughable, since previously it was straight. Or actually it was straight-ish, but with kind of wiggly edges he maybe didn't notice (below: the green lines are straight and the red ones aren't).

Helpfully, Watson reminds the reader: "a circle has no straight edges," while this piece does have a (fairly) straight section, and he thinks it was that way to begin with; "Had this piece originally been circular then you would expect to see signs of stress on the metal as it was forcibly reshaped." He saw none in a detailed photo from a certain angle, but we can also see it's not really straight (but then the curve isn't really perfect either). And if it had originally been straight but got drastically curved, wouldn't that leave stress marks?
Well, I'm no expert, but maybe stress marks just aren't always that obvious. Or maybe he proposes this was originally a mixed "J" shape like that, for use on something unidentified, and just got mildly warped all around? It's not clear where he intended to go with that.

They also show this alternate view of ostensibly the same item from another angle that really looks different. I don't see just how this correlates with the other views, but 12 SDS is said to be just one piece, not 2 similar ones, and this is a view of it, and it's got the same look at the held, curved end, so … I guess this is his perfectly straight original stretch after all, and it really makes my point about this not being the original shape.

Philip Watson has been informed of his confusion several times, but refuses to heed, and continues to paint this bend-to-curve "claim" as the official and only one from the regime-blame camp that matters. As luck would have it, it's the one reading that's flat ridiculous, and he gets to have an extended giggle-fest over it. They lie very illogically, or so Watson has himself convinced. Or so he just has his reader convinced? Anyone?

3d … and that keeps being "improved on."
Watson expanded on the theme, tweeting "When Eliot Higgins goes full Monty Python" you might see him claiming three such long bent rails ran end-to-end down the bomb's length, each one 550mm long, in a bomb that's only 1470mm in total length. He concludes: "When Eliot meets mathematics it's the mathematics that's wrong." (and that might be worded better.)

But considering my reading above, it seems Higgins was highlighting the three rings (again, one at each end and one around the middle of the central tank), each one indicated with a box of pink dots at the top AND the bottom (so 3 dot-boxes along the top and 3 along the bottom) with each vertical pair indicating one of three "straps used to hold the bomb together." To illustrate, he shows what I'm pretty sure is a different kind of item in the Khan Sheikhoun crater, a thin "strap" I'd say with empty bolt-holes in it (see 35:25 in this video)

Watson saw .... whatever, exactly. But it seems Higgins referred to the 3 support rings, each of which would have a circumference even greater - about 1446mm. What we see in 12 SDS is less than half a ring. Now 3 of these, all straightened back out, would make 4,337mm of railing! How could that all fit in a bomb 1/3 that length in total? Well, it could fit in a 3-D manner that it helps to be able to grasp.

For the aspiring researchers out there, there's a valuable lesson here. If you keep finding clues every ten minutes that no one else has ever run with, and you find your opponents making such patently absurd statements … it's worth pausing to check if YOU'RE not the one who's confused, before you proceed to try running a race with both feet in your mouth.

M4000 Distraction, point 2: The Blown-Off Tail Section

October 19, 2019

An in-progress article on "Philip Watson's M4000 Distraction" got entirely too bloated trying to include an entire 13 points in detail on one page. The compound points 2 and 3 deserving their own posts, this one especially due to ramblings that seemed too informative to delete. Point 1 on binary sarin and the M4000 also deserves its own post and, being its own issue with other peoples' confusion also involved, it already got that over here.

The final M4000 distraction overview will include a link to here and a summary of the following under point 2. This dedicated space also allows for any rebuttal or revisions, etc. that I can also consider for the summary.

2 The blown-off tail section ...
2a … that's not blown off
In his recent part 3, Watson considers the second M4000 Bellingcat located in a 2014 video. He describes it as "a more retarded (distorted) version with blown off tail section" that was "blown off in, what seems to be, perfect fashion." (that might hold a clue to the nature of any optical error at work here - he doesn't explain the details of his decision, either verbally or visually, except that perfection note - does he see a hacksaw cut but is soft-pedaling it for now?).

To me, that's just baffling. As I'll re-show, the back end is entirely there, minus the ring around the tailfins that are now flattened so the thing looks like fat metal cuttlefish. I showed this to him in a discussion on October 7, with that note to help spur a review. He just slapped the same image back laughing that I was mad to see a tail section there and promising to end the discussion on this note (tweet). I asked him to clarify what he saw instead, but he repeated he was out of time either because the discussion "is degenerating swiftly" (his tweet) or, as I proposed "you don't have time to explain what that image shows. Ok." With that and some more closing provocation on my part (bit 1, bit 2, both to be illustrated in the course of this project), he proceeded to block me.

Well gosh, he should be correct as all hell to take such a firm stand, right?

To be fair, I didn't draw on there what area I meant, as I do in the image below, but it should be evident enough, filling the whole frame he tried to ridicule me with.

I ask all readers, likely including him, what else can be specified as filling that white outlined space with a shadow beneath it? I think probably 98% of humans would recognize it as an extension of the same object, and probably some higher mammals could do the same. Lower invertebrates - aside from maybe cuttlefish - would probably lodge no recognition.

I guess Watson thinks this is a hacksawed part of the middle of the bomb, and the tail should be further out if it were there. But all the parts of that tail except the support ring are in there. The possibly telling shape of the distorted fins in there were first noted (that I know of) by Amin251, who partly traced them in red dots, a good method (cropped image at right. This tries to show (starting at image center and reading to the left) the curled top edge and, then the curving back edge of the one fin holding up all that rope, AND the straight-seeming edge of another fin in shadow below that.

However a problem I was late to notice - Amin's line jumps early (at the sharp angle on the left). The first fin continues further 'til it's invisible under the rope, and the next one starts back there as well. There's a smudge of dirt on the lens here, blurring the view, but we can still see the rusty plane of the lower fin continuing into that corner, if we look close. Add: if we look even closer, the first curving line of dots could run another 2 dots or so to the left, but the second line starts in the right spot. I misread a piece of pavement as the rest of that fin.

Amin humbly suggested the curves traced there might be the same seen in 2013, and I wound up agreeing, as explained in more detail here. (that small error has no bearing on the match) So for what it's worth, this second M4000 from 2014 was actually seen 8 months earlier, and just remained half-buried for the time between. This is a find of some interest we come back to below.

Philip Watson may not even see these details, let alone agree on how to read them. But to his credit, he turns a disadvantage around, and uses that blindness to inform and expand his analysis...

2b ... that was blown-off with a tail impact fuze?
"[T]he video of the M4000 with missing tail section," Watson explained, is exactly the mystery that "made me ask the question if the Syrian military had added a tail fuse to the munition as part of its ‘repurposing’? That would certainly explain the missing tail section." This refers to an impact fuze/fuse (both spellings are used), basically the "button" meant to be pushed on impact, to trigger the detonation of explosives, or whatever that weapon does. And Watson pointed to a certain Russian-made bomb (shown, named as "FAB 250 (M54 variant)." I found the photo at uxoinfo.com (as shown here, a little ways below), with no attached info I found on the model or location. But it had a protrusion in the back Watson decided was an "impact fuse" on the tail. It's probably not the only one in the world with such an attachment, so...

"That discovery had got me thinking how much like the schematic design of the M4000 this part of the bomb looked like," Watson explains, referring to what I call a "spindle" sticking out between the tail fins (red box here). That seems to be linked to the mixing arm inside, for breaking the dividing wall and mixing the binary precursors. The Russian bomb he shows has a similar cylindrical object in the same spot. It seems to have a fatter shape, and it should have a different purpose, as OFAB are regular high explosive bombs with nothing inside that needs mixing.

"Then when I saw the video from Bellingcat," Watson continues, "I thought the idea of a tail fuse being added, in place of the mixing arm, to be a plausible concept." He seems to propose an impact fuze on the back (in case it landed tail-first?), and he suspects that's what blew off the back end. Well …

Initially I thought this claim was ludicrous. In general, as the Wikipedia article explains it, a contact fuze - which includes impact and inertia types - is "placed in the nose of a bomb or shell so that it will detonate on contact with a hard surface." No other placements are mentioned, and general bomb design is to fall nose first, always if possible.

Per Wikipedia, an inertia fuze is a variation of the same usual kind that's more sensitive, useful if the impact is too indirect for a conventional device. Maybe it just senses the sudden stop the whole bomb would "feel." Watson concluded the visible nosecone fuze on the 2013 example was an "inertia fuse," with no basis I know of. But it could be. The schematics show a zig-zag wire, perhaps a real thing we don't see on the field examples? Making this a proximity fuze maybe? That uses radar-like signals to sense when it's close to impact. A sarin bomb should have one.

Usually, as the Wikipedia entry suggests, neither kind nor any kind is put on the tail end of the bomb, although logically an inertia fuze might work there.But after some digging I learned something new: Russia's FAB-250 class bombs are described as having "a massive warhead without a fuse socket." (Global Security), and the shown example seems to fit that bill, with just an aerodynamic metal battering ram of a nosecone and no kind of push-able button sticking out of it. And there must be a fuze on there somewhere...

The following does ramble a bit, but goes to say he might be right on calling that a tail fuze, and such a thing might be used wherever, including on re-purposed M4000s in Syria.

On Watson's example model: As this page on FAB-250 explains, the M numbers refer to the basic design or model, while the 250, 150, 500, etc. clearly refer to weight. That helps correlate a chart someone shared here showing different FAB bombs, some with visible fuzes in the nosecone and some without There's an FAB-250 M46 variant shown, that has different structural details (more fins, etc.) but the same plain round nosecone. There may be an inertia fuze in the back, though neither it nor the others has such a thing drawn in at the back. (Two other 250s are shown, labeled with no M number - the plain-old FAB-250 has a nose similar to the M46 and the longer OFAB-250 has a flat nose with an apparent fuze sticking out).

The M54 model at 250 size isn't included in that chart, but an M54 style in the larger FAB-500 size is shown. That has better structural matches to the photo, suggesting M54 is the right style, except it has a nosecone fuze. Other variances: a different kind of ridge behind the nosecone, and 4 fins vs. 6, it seems. Maybe M54 in the 250 size just has those differences. Moving on …

There's nothing else I can think of with my limited knowledge to explain the protrusions we see on the OFAB-250 M54. Possibly some radio guidance transmitter device? I don't see any moving parts on there (fins mainly, to adjust the fall) that could be remotely controlled = no reason to talk to the bomb once it's dropped. So as far as I know, there's nothing else that could be but the speculated tail-end fuze, presumably of the inertia type. But for the M4000, April 2013 case, with the slender object as shown above, I propose the regular designed spindle of the mixing arm.

This was to Watson "only a theory I’m positing," but it might transform to gospel and play into the conclusion that follows; "What the Higgins found videos tell us is that if these munitions are M4000’s then they had indeed been repurposed in 2013 and were being used as conventional weapons." That might well be, but only two points are mentioned to support that view:

1) the very presence of the bomb at a time (2013) when Syria claimed it was dropping M4000 re-purposed for conventional explosives (and that's a good point)

2) the dwelt-on "tail fuse" and "missing tail" nonsense, which seems even more central to showing his point. It should be, as it's all about the visual evidence and - as it turns out - his ridiculously poor comprehension of it.

As noted, the mixing arm built into the M4000 is inconvenient for Watson's argument the M4000 cannot be used with binary precursors; this device has no other known purpose than to "mix" once-divided precursors. But he might have found a way to erase that problem, if it could be "proven" (hypothesized and then quickly and firmly believed) that another object had filled the "spindle's" spot - especially if it were an impact fuze that would also require a tube of explosive packing to replace the whole mixing arm assembly inside. That would really prove it can't deliver sarin. And the idea he liked was that this device was added "in place of the mixing arm."

So the notion of a tail fuze isn't that implausible, but the whole reason to suspect one was his strangely failing to see something that's really pretty obvious. Puzzling then how he got to the question, but he may be convincing himself right now that this was done, the mixing arm was nixed and the proof of it is that perfectly blown-off tail assembly.

2c The missing tail found, in the year 2013?

Finally, I just confused things when I brought up my recent sighting of the same unit - its supposedly missing tail end anyway - as seen after the supposed bomb drop, on or before 15 July, 2013 - or so I think, and with good reason.

But it was buried so only the tail is visible, and that was bound to confuse the poor guy. As I recall Watson was giggling at my supposed theory they buried the back half here and the front half somewhere else - I guess since he's so certain the two were disconnected he couldn't even fathom that I honestly disagreed with that. In fact he picked this as a strong point to close the discussion with. Another tweet, sorry, that's worth citing:

"Oh I see! So the opposition buried the M4000 body and the tail section, separately, for 8 months hence why it's full of, what you claim, is "dirt"? And whilst arguing you found the rear section you're also arguing it's still on the M400? I'm going to leave it there."

But he also denied that was the back end of any M4000 I had found, on account of the "spindle" (or impact fuze?) looking different (tweet). Somewhere he claimed (tweet deleted) the difference was the early view has a tail fuze attached just like the Russian bomb did, as it were "in place of the mixing arm."

It does look different, comparing the above and below images at right: the detailed tip with a flat-sided bolt seen at the end may be part of the design (unclear from the other example at top). But the lower example looks more bulky, and not just from being off its axis, which it also seems to be. This could be another device swapped in, or just some kind of sleeve bolted over the mixing arm (and it's not off-axis, just loose?) on a unit where that wasn't to be used. Maybe a protective cover most of them have prior to use? That would make the other example the odd one out for missing it.

Well, whatever that is, it seems to be part of the unit Watson already called a probable M4000. As shown above, the fins on that have broken free of the support ring in the same way and display perhaps the same exact bending and curling as the ones seen here more clearly … and as I show below, that wrinkled-edge square-cut hole into the payload tank (main body) is the exact same hole cut into the same part of the same intact 2014 example he already called M4000 (below, cropped images rotated to the same angle and compared). So this clear tail end of - apparently - an M4000 seems to exactly what was inside that white outline above, as it was seen about 8 months earlier.

Watson was proud of being on such a "different level" (as I first put it) from me, Amin, and most others so far who've seen this and lodged a view. As I recall, he protested the 2013 tail section was not M4000 because it had an "impact fuse" instead of the mixing arm spindle, just like the Russian bomb. Of course, he had just been proposing the same thing (a fuze put in the tail of a M4000) as an intriguing lead, so … why pass up a spotting of just that? (I asked here: not the same "Because it has an 'impact fuze' swapped on? "I thought the idea of a tail fuse being added, in place of the mixing arm, to be a plausible concept." Briefly?" - he never answered) Well, it seems he wanted this device to be proven by the blown-off back end. If so, maybe he just didn't want to see it sitting there in the middle of the still-attached back end.

So he picked a course, and kept this unit divorced from itself, taking the separate burial invented reading as his strong point to "leave it there," with no need to venture any further towards, for example, basic visual comprehension.