Talmenes Chemical Incident, 21 April, 2014

2014 Chlorine Attacks {masterlist f/c}
Talmenes, 21 April
December 9, 2018
(rough, incomplete)
last edits Nov. 17, 2019

This was the one clearest incident of five 2014 CW attacks considered by the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) in their Aug. 2016 report S/2016/738
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2016/738
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/wp-content/uploads/s_2016_738.pdf

"52. The launch of a projectile from the ground would not explain the 200 to 300 victims suffering from chlorine exposure. .." Why not? If it falls from above before releasing, there should be no difference, if the device holds the same amount in either scenario. Further, as the commission noted, it's not really clear that many were actually affected. "While the exact number of patients could not be definitively established, it is obvious that large numbers of people were affected by toxic chemicals." And that unknown number is definitely too big to be cause by anything but chemicals dropped from a government helicopter?

Of the 5 considered, three were ruled inconclusive (Gamba interview), and by its treatment in the report, 18 April sounds more like those than it does like the solid and well-founded 21 April attack here. So this is the clearest it got.

Here in a December 2014 report from just the OPCW, it's one of a slightly larger number of considered attacks.
https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/Fact_Finding_Mission/s-1230-2014_e_.pdf

They heard about 200 people were affected and three were killed; the OPCW and the opposition VDC agree, it seems a brother and sister from one home (or a man and his child, or just his child) and an older woman dying in the second barrel bomb impact, with a scene that appeared poorly-staged to the OPCW's consulted experts...

The Attack Sites and Fatalities 

Note: Much of this material is redundant now there's a detailed post for Victim Questions. Check that for a better overview.
---
A sketched map from the December report - barrels dropped, it seems, just a stone's throw from the minaret. But that likely means nothing (I don't think locations matter much here, but I will double-check this detail at least - the coordinates are given in reports).

"The family living in the first house lost a seven-year-old boy, who died within a few hours of exposure, and a teenage girl, who died on the third day after exposure.  The other family members were also severely exposed ... Though the seven-year-old boy was some 15 m from the point of impact of the barrel bomb, there were no signs of physical trauma on his body, which had developed cyanosis and, as explained by interviewees, “turned blue in colour”.  The Mission was provided with a photograph of this dead child; the body lacked any signs of physical trauma."

There's a dispute over the deaths here: Point # 20 explains how the Syrian government "provided the name of the owner of the house that had been targeted … The name corresponds to the name of the owner of the house at location #2. The Government had stated that this person had died in the attack; however, this person was interviewed by the FFM several months after the attack..." Or rather, as point 51 clarifies, again, the government says the attack at site #2 "killed the owner (name provided) and his child. However, a witness interviewed by the FFM later identified himself as this person (i.e., the owner of the house and father of the child that died in the attack)."

The government heard one man and one child died, but the accepted story is two children and no adults, with the reportedly dead man as one of their sources. One could presume the government's information was wrong or a lie, or perhaps that interviewee was an imposter, and perhaps neither of the children that were reported were even from that house.

"In the second house, the family members who were home at the time of the attack and inhaled the toxic chemical suffered from severe medical effects and required medical care.  The matriarch of this family died as a result of this exposure on 25 April 2014, in a hospital outside the Syrian Arab Republic."

"Photographs and/or autopsy records of the seven-year-old boy and the teenage girl from the first house, and of the elderly woman from the second house, were provided to the Mission.  The Mission was also provided with autopsy-related records for these purposes."
This was one of four fatal chlorine attacks in this span, at least as I noted back in 2014-15, and the only one of those four where the victims were from the town they died in (per VDC listings). The others are all from other towns, "displaced" to a spot that wound up being right under a helicopter dropping 'chlorine barrel bombs.' They all tend to be the opposite of the usual fighting-age adult males: almost totally women and children. That's just as suggestive of segregation as with hostages. "Displaced" might be the way they report these people, probably with made-up names to conceal their true identities as, for example, Alawite civilians kidnapped from nearby Ma'an in February.

http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2015/07/syria-chlorine-allegations-2014-attacks.html
http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Maan_Massacre,_2014

VDC: all Idlib CW deaths in this span = 3 total from Telmenes.
* Mahmoud Abdul Razaq Hashash "Nawas" child-male, age 7, died 4-21 "Martyred due to exposure to Chlorine gas which was contained in a barrel bomb shelled on his house, delivered by the government helicopter"
2 delayed deaths in Turkey, both listed on April 25:
* Maryomeh Abdul Razak al-Hashash"Nawas" child-female, age 14, from Telmenes, "Martyred with her brother due to exposure to Chlorine gas which was contained in a barrel bomb shelled on their house on 21-04-2014, delivered by the government helicopter"
* Khadiga Mohammad Barkat, A-F, Telmenes, Martyred with due to exposure to Chlorine gas which was contained in a barrel bomb delivered by the government helicopter on a house on 21-04-2014

---

I have several sources on this, but still working on a readable format. I open it advance just to be anchored into finishing that. And if anyone has info past those reports, the VDC, and these further sources...

https://necpluribusimpar.net/beware-propaganda-syria

https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/alleged-chlorine-attacks-in-syria-2014-18/#april-to-may-2014-chlorine-barrel-bombs

Videos: https://syrianarchive.org/en/collections/chemical-weapons/database?unit=38dc338&incident=TMI210414 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chlorine-idUSBREA3L11I20140422

"A Reuters photograph of another young boy who had been transferred to a hospital closer to the Turkish border showed him lying dead on a stretcher with blood around his mouth. Medics said he had been exposed to chlorine gas at Telminnes. Videos from the site of Monday's bombing showed the same yellow canisters, this time twisted from an explosion." 

I have this photo - it's available on searches. Here's one at the primary source:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chemicalweapons-syria/u-n-opcw-inquiry-blames-syria-government-for-gas-attacks-likely-sanctions-fight-looms-idUSKCN10Z2KY

The boy has eyelids pulled open wide, no red eyes, as usual for chlorine exposure (and as reported to the OPCW). But a lot of red-pink coming out his nose, soaking into the gauze across his mouth, and suctioned up a tube from his airways, as if he breathed in something caustic. Why it was breathable but didn't affect his eyes seems strange, but it wouldn't be the last time we'd see that. His torso is oddly yellow in color. I don't know what that could mean, but it's notable. It's said he turned blue, but if so it was after this medical intervention.

Attack Site Details
Location #1
The problems here were noted and discussed in July, 2017 by Philippe Lemoine

https://necpluribusimpar.net/beware-propaganda-syria

...here is how the report describes one of the videos, in paragraph 26 of annex IV:

The forensic report further stated that the remnants seen in v04 [a video provided by a witness] are not likely the carrier of the explosives that caused the crater (“pit”), since the device would have fragmented at the top and sides dispersing into smaller pieces, like the remnants in v04. The munition would only have carried a small amount of explosives and could not have caused a crater of this size. In addition, the bodies of the dead animals seen in v04 look clean and intact, making it highly unlikely that they were in the backyard or at close vicinity when the device causing the crater detonated.

This screams of a scene that has been tampered with, but the authors of the report don’t even point that out explicitly. Instead, they merely conclude the discussion of the evidence about this impact by saying that, “as a result of these inconsistencies, location #1 was disregarded for further investigation”.

"Indeed, their conclusion against the regime is based entirely on the second location, where another impact was observed. But as the report itself acknowledges, “given that v02 [another video provided by a witness] has been taken two days after the incident, it is possible that the remnants may have been moved from the initial point of impact”.  (It should be noted that v02 also documents the impact at the first location, so the witness who provided it also shot a scene that was clearly tampered with. He may not have been aware of that, but it obviously casts doubt on the reliability of that video, a point that is not even discussed in the report.)" 

Moving remnants is the main reason other incidents were left unclear. It doesn't do much to suggest initial planting, just removal after the first videos. As seen below, the animals are gone too. 

The conclusion that the regime is responsible for the use of chlorine at this location is entirely based on the fact that the Syrian government’s explanation for what happened at this location, unlike the allegation by the rebels, was deemed inconsistent with the evidence shown in v02. In other words, the regime was asked to prove that it was innocent and, when it couldn’t, it was declared guilty. The investigators in charge of this case evidently have a rather unusual conception of the burden of proof…

Lemoine then discusses seized chlorine from  Aleppo, possibly moved here - more specifically, SyGov had "barrels containing chlorine gas" and unknown chemicals stored in two specific homes in Kafr Zeyta the OPCW should look into, but they were prevented by the side with apparently fake videos.

In fact their expert felt a buried explosives might explain that crater:

"24. According to the forensic expert analysis, the crater (“pit”) in v02 and v03 is caused by a detonation, but the origin of the detonation is probably an explosive charge of 5 to 10 kg TNT-equivalent buried in the ground."

It's not clear why someone would do this, bury explosives in someone's barnyard, and then detonate it. I'm no expert, but an explosive warhead that goes off late after it hits the soil might look similar. There is a possible direction to the dirt piling, towards the raised side, but that's mild or perhaps my imagination. But note below how much soil is just missing. No simple thud caused that. Much was blown far up and drifted some distance before settling across the neighborhood. This huge crater does require a blast that wound up leaving no marks, as if a bunch of dirt absorbed most of its violence. 

Of course animals with no wounds would be taken as victims of the gas, not an explosion the opposition's story doesn't even include. Did they all come out of the barn and the coop just to flop over dead or like the chickens, tumble down into the crater? That seems possible, but this scene doesn't line up anyway. That evident blast would probably vaporize or disperse any toxic agents too much too have any effect.

As for the unharmed animals: the December report's appendix 25 shows a dead cow from location #2 that doesn't help here (top), then in the middle, a goat and half the crater from site #1, from rotated video, but there flipped backwards from the actual video. The bird is I think also from location #2.

Below is my location #1 view from 2 videos: left rotated frames taken from street side. right + below, details on the dead animals around and in the crater. The black-and-white long-haired goat (or some kind of sheep? an ungulate) may be foaming from the mouth, but that would be very vivid white foam, and thick. That can happen. Behind him is a door into a barn area with a sheep, a trough and perhaps a few more bodies, I forget. It seems mostly empty.

Next the bomb side - implicitly, it plowed into the dirt, then bounced up onto the raised platform on the opposite side, next to the tiny chicken coop, I presume, and some blue barrel, maybe used for water collection, but not blast damaged. Also I note odd symbols-writing on the concrete ledge. This might be a clue to who really lived here. Something says this indicates Druze faith, perhaps? Looks mystical, not a stern Takfiri kind of thing...

The actual device apparently landed somewhere after quite a flight or fall. It's a little hard to read, but involves outer casing with at least one big bolt, a yellow gas cylinder inside, something red...

"Metadata of V04 include timestamps that indicate 20 April 2014 as the creation date, one day before the incident. It is noted, that metadata depends on the settings of the recording device used and can be altered."

The alteration could go against the ones that did fit just as well. But they're right that this is inconclusive; a fuller set of data could show more or less reason for suspicion, but couldn't prove anything.

Location #2
Add Nov. 17, 2019
From a video saved at Syria Archive, a composite view of the damage at location, as given, N35.6405500° E36.7418833°. This is where the supposed father turned up to deny he and his one child were killed. Instead, he'd say his 2 kids died of chlorine from that twisted tank.

From another video there, a limited view on the deep crater:

The Syrian Government explained to OPCW how, as the report s/2016/738 puts it:
"an armed opposition group fired a projectile from Ma’ar Shamarin (south of Talmenes) that fell in the centre of the village, close to a residential house which is one of the residential properties mentioned in paragraph 10 above. The impact caused substantial damage and two people died. The Government further said that armed opposition group used this incident to accuse the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) to have fired a projectile armed with chlorine gas. This description did not include any information on the use of chlorine gas or affected people. One witness said to have heard the explosion and smelled an odour like “rotten eggs”, but did not see any injured people."

"33. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic stated that the munition was launched from a land-based delivery system. The munition did not contain chemicals. The Government provided a picture of the type of munition supposedly used at location #2. The munition shown in the photograph has a number of significant differences as compared with the remnants seen in the other pictures and videos related to location #2. That munition is rocket-propelled, with at least eight fins. No remnants of this kind were documented at the site."

No chemicals suggests explosives, or else why fire it? Just to be clear: "The rocket-propelled munition type indicated by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is, according to munition experts, almost certainly a conventional high-explosive type."

So they say it came in laterally from a neighboring town, not from straight above, carried explosives, not chlorine, and caused this damage. That's certainly more believable than the opposition claim that this lone metal tank smashed out all these walls and flung the bricks so widely, made a crater at least a meter dep and several wide, now filled with rubble. The FFM's experts felt this was no explosives or just a small charge (maybe noting the cylinder itself is just deformed by impact, not any packed-in explosives) deciding the weapon Syria described would have 200kg of TNT and no less, and would cause far more damage and smaller fragmentation. There are large chunks, but also a lot of smaller ones and some reduced to dust.

From the second video, some more composite views of the damage. This seems to be later in the day on an earlier day than the video above. This mess appears to closer represent the post-impact state of things.

I still can't fully correlate this scene and how it fits on the map (basic area given looks right, and one building there changes appearance in the right time span, mostly on its south-facing side. I suppose that's it, but the other surroundings don't line up like it SEEMS they should. Anyway, here's another view from the FFM report S/1230, after some cleanup and re-arranging:

That's a lot of bricks loosed by a chlorine bomb. Even more if any or all of those stacked at left are part of it.

And this sketch is supposed to help - they drew in  the helicopter, and how it was above, mainly, the (south-facing?) wall, which is noted collapsed, with the bomb lodged at the south edge of the rubble pile, as seen. A drawn arrow at bottom happened to be useful - my label added there.  This and the above are an Appendix 9 in that report.

In Douma, 2018, one hole is punched and it doesn't even pass through. Here, the same kind of "experts" say, the same kind of non-explosive chlorine cylinder (maybe a bit different, but clearly with little or no explosives involved) - flattens half a house and excavates the ground under it. But it's no issue. S/1230: "The first bomb fell on the kitchen roof of one house, destroying the kitchen, the adjacent toilet, and part of the wall of one room." The other one dislocated a lot of soil. Paragraph 5.14 explains how the impacts created craters of these sizes:
* "1.4 m deep and 3 m wide in the second house" (buried bomb, 5-10 kg TNT estimate, since there's no shrapnel marks, and "A barrel bomb without a large explosive charge would not penetrate the hard soil to the extent seen.")
* "approximately 1.5 m deep and 2 m wide in the first house," AFTER smashing through part of the house. This was by the chlorine tank "barrel bomb", with NO explosives, or at least NOT the expected equivalent of 200+ kg of TNT. An unexpected 20-50 kg, for example, could do it, perhaps. Their basis for expecting 200+ are not given, but it could be just to make that claim SEEM to mismatch the evidence, so the government of Syria could be overruled, once again, in favor of dubious claims by the insurgents.

Directions: The different shadows seen must be from the south, basically, and west, in mid-day and afternoon views. So it appears the major damage was to the south wall of this building, suggesting the weapon came from the south, or a bit west perhaps from the rubble spread. Checking Google Earth, Ma’ar Shamarin is about 2 km to the SSW of Talmines, or 3km from the stricken homes (my measure based on given coordinates, and what the FFM gives). That's easy range for any sizeable rocket.

Other Issues

Chemical Findings:
S/2016/738 August 2016
30. Samples taken two days after the event at location #2 were provided to an international newspaper. The results of a sample analysis have been published on
29 April 2014, stating that soil samples from Kafr Zita and Talmenes “were found by a chemical warfare expert to contain traces of chlorine and ammonia”.
... the details of the analysis and the chain of custody for these samples have not been established.
31. Another source had collected samples “in Talmenes at the end of April”. This source shared its analysis results, stating that chlorinated compounds, as well as traces of TNT, had been found in the soil and gravel. However, the source cautioned that it had no scientific evidence of the use of chlorine.
32. Another witness mentioned the presence of a likely foreign non-governmental organization which also took samples. The Mechanism did not have direct access to any of the samples.
52. ... According to a witness, ...  Despite a smell of “rotten eggs”, the witness did not feel any symptoms and did not see any injured people; just those in panic..."

S-1230, Dec. 2014
Strange symptoms caused by the "honey wax-to-yellow coloured gas" were noted as:

"burning sensation in the eyes; redness of the eyes; itchy eyes; excessive tearing; blurred vision; a burning sensation on the face and exposed skin; a burning sensation in the throat; coughing; difficulty breathing; shortness of breath; a feeling of suffocation; excessive nasal discharge; watering in the mouth; nausea; vomiting; abdominal pain; diarrhoea; headache; generalised weakness; drowsiness; disorientation; feeling of panic; and loss of consciousness."

Burning/irritation, coughing, some discharge is caused by chlorine. The rest of this is not. In fact few have noted the unknown second chemical in these 2014 chlorine bombs - a light-yellow powder in small plastic tubs. I'll be coming back to that.

One video shows many gas cylinders in front of a busy clinic, as armed men and civilians cough and transfer between vehicles frantically... this boy has a catheter in his right hand from prior medical treatment. But he's coughing and gasping badly. Some people take him off for a second round of help. Bottom view shows the yellow canister with a marking.

…
Government Story:
S/2016/738 August 2016
11. The Government ... an armed opposition group fired a projectile from Ma’ar Shamarin (south of Talmenes)
did not include any information on the use of chlorine gas or affected people.
32.  The Government provided a picture of the type of munition supposedly used at location #2. The munition shown in the photograph has a number of significant differences as compared with the remnants seen in the other pictures and videos related to location #2. That munition is rocket-propelled, with at least eight fins. No remnants of this kind were documented at the site.

20. The Syrian government "provided the name of the owner of the house that had been targeted … The name corresponds to the name of the owner of the house at location #2. The Government had stated that this person had died in the attack; however, this person was interviewed by the FFM several months after the attack..."
or
51. again, the government says the attack at site #2 "killed the owner (name provided) and his child. However, a witness interviewed by the FFM later identified himself as this person (i.e., the owner of the house and father of the child that died in the attack).
He had 2 children die - allegedly.

52. ... According to a witness, armed opposition fighters spread the information about the use of chemicals after the explosion, causing panic among the population. The same people also provided face masks to people and told them to leave the village. Despite a smell of “rotten eggs”, the witness did not feel any symptoms and did not see any injured people; just those in panic. The witness attempted to enter the hospital, but was denied access. The same witness stated that people who were referred to other hospitals came back to town two days later, with no visible signs of injuries.

12. Someone blamed ISIS/ISIL, saying they had a presence there the JIM found no information on, and tried to lauch a regular rocket from one of these homes, had it blow up and kill them with unknown chemicals. The JIM rightly dismissed this as an apparent politically-lotivated bad guess.