OPCW FFM Engineering Sub-Team Censored Report
May 14, 2019
(rough, incomplete)
The last day or so has been kinetic (by my standards), and I've been on the topic all over, so for now, just an intro, and a new place for related comments, etc.
Wow. OPCW's first try at making it add up failed? Failure lodged and now visible? Subsequent dancing around its obvious findings, while outsiders like us had to re-create them? Am I following this right?
https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1127879454053634049
Still digesting, but that seems about it. That was following on Tim Hayward's directing to the report's initial explanation and hosting at the WGSPM site.
http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers/assessment-by-the-engineering-sub-team-of-the-opcw-fact-finding-mission-investigating-the-alleged-chemical-attack-in-douma-in-april-2018
As the story spreads especially, please use alt download links like this one, or your own:
I'm affiliated w/WGSPM, but I wasn't involved in or privy to this document … leak, I guess, until just before it came out. I was just too slow to advise on a few of "my" points cited in their accompanying article. (I'll cover that here).
Note: expanded rev 1 (original was done earlier, not clear when)
It says "do not circulate." I'd like to offer my humble gratitude to the person(s) who did circulate anyway. People of honor, I presume, who would not take that risk without good reason. And that reason, the problems with the OPCW, will be coming into focus now, however clearly they do.
Content: mostly later.
some links:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/05/syria-opcw-engineering-assessment-the-douma-chemical-weapon-incident-was-staged.html
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/leaked-document-pokes-more-holes-in-establishment-syria-narrative-de27b43e542d?fbclid=IwAR3fEzZhnKaRUI_yByJ8LmHxWIwmgO6eCBef73iUvMWmBkWfl270l4CmHTY
https://www.facebook.com/EAWorldView/photos/a.1820058271609914/2305766406372429/?type=3&theater
Stating the Obvious:
As I just put it elsewhere: "By the way, we didn't need Henderson's repot leaked to see that. I made this a while back to explain the evident idiocy the OPCW was embracing.
What's new with the leak is confirmation of our hopes there was still some science, some honesty, and some good guys still left there. Despite the OPCW leadership's efforts, we can now say there is at least some hope for this outfit."
Adding to that … the reports paragraph 24 points out how "a "criss-cross" pattern" on the cylinder's side was "attributed by some observers" to an impact with or through the tangled "wire netting" "This explanation however is inconsistent with the vertical, or near-vertical, angle of incidence that was assumed (and would have been required) to have created the crater in the concrete slab."
This too we already knew, anyone who can think in 3-D at all and took a moment to try. A crude and now very old graphic I made after seeing the NYT/Bellingcat/Forensic architecture team put forth the same logic-impaired theory:
The FFM at large are among those "observers," and insisted on the final report's Annex 6, point 4. "The visual damage on the body of the cylinder indicates that the lateral aspect of the cylinder did not slide on the mesh but it hit perpendicularly." And this as always helped prove it fell at some random angle from an Assad helicopter, also hit the corner where there was no mesh at the same time, and then punched that nose-down hole, and folks have to be held accountable, etc.
But the 3-D world called them while they were out drafting this, left a message on the voice mail; "Hey there, been a while since we've spent some time together. Got people physically dying over here, and where the hell are you guys?"
The only sensible argument I've seen is the possibility the assessment was considered but rejected by the FFM. That being the case however, it would be reasonable to expect the final report to explain or refute the issues raised by Henderson. Which it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteAs for accuracy, a comparison:
Deletehttps://imgur.com/YCyVojl
I'd go so far as to say they must have rejected it, unless maybe they never saw it. Presuming they did see it, it was rejected in a way that didn't even warrant a mention. Both decisions (to reject and to not mention) are consistent with their wanting the true science to disappear and leave the other version as the only and thus best available version. Showing the same spirit, that version rejected any consideration of a different scenario, and only looked at air-drop option.
DeleteAs for it being solicited, last-minute before releasing the final report, that does seem a bit unlikely. First draft was whenever, I'd guess prior to the mentioned attempt in October. Why would they want an expanded revision of Henderson's report (expanded by how much?) at the end? Some possible reasons, but maybe Henderson who expanded and re-delivered it on his own initiative - too late to be included in, but early enough to at least let them re-consider releasing the steaming pile they did release a couple days later.
I was considering the possibility of the final report as a response to issues raised by Henderson, the response being to just omit the 'problems'.
DeleteE.g.
(27) Cylinder cannot fit through hole without breaking valve and deforming fins as observed
= final report shows model cylinder without fins and valve, describes with harness dimensions as "still in line" with crater without ever showing that it is
(19) Height of 500-2000m produces inconsistent results and still cannot bend out the rebar enough
= lower helicopter height to 150m without directly addressing, don't address rebar angle at all
(24) 'Mesh' pattern on cylinder inconsistent with angle of cylinder
= final report doesn't specify when the cylinder is meant to be hitting the mesh, all quite vague - I couldn't make this work in the FFM's proposed sequence by the way
https://imgur.com/jHRq3Id
(17) Impact angle needs to be under 20 degrees and low velocity
= bounce cylinder first on roof (without apparently ever verifying roof damage and time of damage is consistent with cylinder), include "The angle shown in figures A.6.6, A.6.7 (a) to (c) are indicative only and not representing actual impact angle."
(31) No marks to indicate bouncing
= include no photos of the floor/corner in A.7.7 where the cylinder is meant to have bounced, leave out all "numerical calculations"... hope no-one notices?
Even the speculation on corrosion, 8.16 in the FFM report gives the chandelier as an example of how all metallic objects in the room are corroded, the inference being by chlorine. But looking at it:
https://imgur.com/1BbiOn2
I wonder how the corrosion seen compares with other apartments in Douma and if other non-public photos made Henderson think the cylinder corrosion was really not consistent with the scene overall.
As for your cool comparison: https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1128805126976630784
DeleteI was thinking about making a list but I'll defer to the much more eloquent Stephen McIntyre who has put together a good thread on the various issues
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1128758581287899137
If Henderson's model couldn't bend the rebar enough from 500m, 150m is certainly not going to do it.
Some dissent from a 'Patrick Hilsman' but seems baseless and, looking at their other tweets, not really worth attention or response (claims FFM provide "painstaking detail about the physics" https://twitter.com/PatrickHilsman/status/1101876714605592576 .. enough said.)
There we go
Deletehttps://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1129009698290708480
"Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question."
The engineer report is real.
Was there any announcement of an investigation when the draft KS JIM report leaked?
DeleteOn that last question<> the KS report was clearly an approved leak, so not a leak at all. They let it be called that to seem all edgy and relevant. Now that it's edgy for real with actual leaks of the real science, they hate it and start sputtering random denials. Pansies.
Deletehttps://medium.com/@Brian_Whit/leaked-document-revives-controversy-over-syria-chemical-attacks-a40f06a9a13d
ReplyDeleteWho are the "chemical weapons community"? Social media 'pundits'?
Just about the only time the OPCW have the opportunity to do a proper investigation they refuse to allow an experienced veteran to be part of the FFM.. but get him to do detailed models, testing and a report... just to give him something to do? It sounds completely moronic, if they wanted to extend his contract surely they also actually value his expertise.
Speaking of moronic:
https://twitter.com/PatrickHilsman/status/1129135997030207488
The importance of being in Douma suggesting that the inspectors who went there were incapable of recording the data needed for 3rd party expert analysis. Think about that!
And why not just make up the nature of Henderson's role, how it was reviewed and some "shocking errors".
Can't cope with an OPCW expert disagreeing? Try and smear them as some kind of amateur third wheel pariah.
Brian thinks there is some quirk of OPCW employment practises that means they have people doing essentially pointless work
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Brian_Whit/status/1129306400809730048
Not sure I'd describe an engineering assessment as "non-essential" but still.
All with allegedly 100s of incidents to investigate and still finding time to chat to outsiders about OPCW internal affairs which presumably breaks some confidentiality policy.
"experienced veteran" - tidbit I just picked up - OPCW likes to be clear it's NOT a cerreer agency. People work there no more than 7 years. In Henderson's case, if I follow, I'd guess he was one of the first there in '98 up to maybe 2005, and has come back at least once in or before 2018. Likely he was picked for experience, on hopes that would work to their favor but oops.
DeleteRoof damage and FFM's similar crater is probably clearest in the Panorama video. I hope everyone agrees the other comparable crater wasn't made by a yellow cylinder (and can be seen in 2017 Google Earth images)
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/FSG0FNo
https://imgur.com/1kJYYvq
Deletehttps://imgur.com/KV6Xw8W
Everyone is also agreed there was once a metal structure and mesh on the balcony, how this may affect physical traces of any explosion is unknown as no-one actually knows what was standing at the time.
DeleteAnd however much Higgins et al try and paint Henderson as some lone 'disgruntled' employee (all pure speculation), the fact is there is no known testing in the final report to show that the valve could smash through ceiling intact or testing shown for other issues. Funny how quickly they turn against the experts they would otherwise constantly defer to as 'proof they are right'.
It is obvious to anyone who is genuinely independent that there was only one politically acceptable conclusion for the FFM here post-'punishment' bombing.
Plus if an expert privately tells other OPCW inspectors the fragmentation pattern is "unusually elevated, but possible" I tend to believe him over a twitter 'journalist'. He would hardly lie to them and certainly isn't making anything up to try and impress the internet or as part of some stupid Russian conspiracy.
DeleteNorth wall damage https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1129372412586471425
Deletehttps://imgur.com/JiZcXRx
Not sure if there is a better view but it always looked quite neat to me, the kind of hole they might make to shoot through. Add in the buckets, a tarp over the mesh above, maybe sandbags or similar so frag pattern only appears higher up.. you get the idea.
OK, you saw my tweet + image - also in https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1129367958491320320
DeleteSome really great views here - possibly other causes for some holes, but if it's in that band... the bigger chunks must be different - not one piece of shrapnel, but maybe weapon casing? a hurled object? 5 shrapnel frags punching out a circle?
Related to the damage here are the 2 *full* buckets of debris seen in the very first video on the balcony. Ruling out anyone filling buckets the night of the 7th or morning of the 8th (or bringing debris in buckets from elsewhere).. an abandoned clean up of earlier damage to somewhere right there.
DeleteInteresting view of directly below the balcony too
Deletehttps://imgur.com/axsdf9b
New chlorine accusations too. Timing after the leak is I'm sure complete coincidence.
I know not really your focus but if bed cylinder corrosion was uniquely chlorine related, would it be fair to say the fin corrosion wouldn't be uniform given they were partially wrapped in a blanket? Bits of rusty fin shown on the bed when the blanket was unwrapped too.
https://imgur.com/UpZK7bA
FFM wouldn't say "a corrosive substance" if uniquely identifiable visually and the same corrosion would necessarily be found at the apartments? (i.e. someone on twitter cannot look at a photo and declare it corrosion by chlorine)
To be specific, this:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/PatrickHilsman/status/1129412635542401026
Would be absolute bs
+ Lucas
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ScottLucas_EA/status/1130127048461160448
Now claiming Henderson's measurements are wrong despite (#4) using those taken by the FFM team and from the manufacturer. EA Worldview must only be worth $4m now.
https://imgur.com/4N4sJjO
ReplyDeleteFor the hell of it, it can be seen from the FFM report that the 105cm measurement encapsulates all of the damage with different size boxes - including damage next to the wall that is only the top layer.
On the Henderson image (if he drew the diagram of course), the hole only shows where it has broken through to the room below. The 105cm line is feint but on the right of the fins, horizontal is in proportion with 166cm, cylinder 140 x 35cm. Deformed fin overhangs by around 25cm, with the frame bent and pushed up towards the valve. So fins would be longer if not damaged of course, lots illegible due to photocopy and some diagrams included do say "not to scale".
Seems in proportion for cylinder and hole to me.
A bit more comparison to see if Ian Henderson gave the FFM's own measurements back to them but changed
Deletehttps://imgur.com/rbQi40C
https://imgur.com/1uCAe2P
tl;dr - the Henderson report diagram looks in proportion and matches nicely
FFM model strangely lacking in the 'bouncing' corner
Rough check for the water tank
Deletehttps://imgur.com/aCZ3BS4
Maybe not pixel perfect because of my resizing (someone else can do that if they care, I used the 1.2m by the shower to scale) but there you go.
Unable to find any specific claim of wrong measurements, just a vague suggestion that 'something is wrong' accepted by someone from Channel 4 in the UK (who equally doesn't seem to have just checked it themselves) https://twitter.com/martinrw/status/1130473122224906241
Deletehttps://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1130044271200022528
"is anything in that report verified as being accurate? For example, the dimensions of the munition used"
Known dimensions of the cylinder via FFM are correct (140 x 35cm) so.. yes. Wonder why Higgins doesn't just measure the diagram himself?
https://twitter.com/ScottLucas_EA/status/1130158710884581376
https://twitter.com/ScottLucas_EA/status/1130127048461160448
"Assumptions re ... relative sizes of cylinder and aperture" "model lacks detail of that in OPCW report and his drawings are incorrect in measurements and scale"
It uses the FFM's measurements not assumptions, as above- it is correct
https://twitter.com/PatrickHilsman/status/1130211202423054337
"That black stuff on the cylinder is from Chlorine."
Hilsman's 'markings' are even the *wrong* cylinder - Henderson's corrosion speculation refers to the bedroom cylinder.
The intact fins do appear to be different, FFM approx. measurements vs. Henderson report model here
Deletehttps://imgur.com/LxZLrq9
but this assumes the blue diagram in the FFM report is to scale and there are no fin measurements to check which, if any, are right.
Very, very approx. by the way. The important part is the Henderson fins are shorter and not sure why they would be different if both from actual measurements.
DeleteMichael Kobs model + measurements:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1128772934158487552
Henderson report diagram has 10cm valve as in top diagram
https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1128785026752155648
The hole being smaller in reality than the measurements given by FFM is backed up to an extent by Forensic Architecture's attempt to measure from below:
https://youtu.be/Z-hw9bBCCZM?t=444
One measurement is quite close the other (that should be 105cm) too short
Attempting to make it fit by stretching the diagram of the hole:
Deletehttps://imgur.com/HbdO0gi
In fact throwing away all of it and just making a square hole 166x105cm, a 140x35cm cylinder and a 10cm valve, it is clear that as soon as fins are added, it cannot fit through horizontally. People can try it themselves.. or more likely not.
(and yes the hole would be a rectangle not a square, the point still stands that the FFM report is wrong)
DeleteBrian Whitaker now has a source saying the report wasn't rejected because the model was wrong as Scott Lucas claims but-
https://medium.com/@Brian_Whit/leaked-opcw-document-wheres-the-conspiracy-71d97d9ecf89
"when Henderson’s assessment was reviewed there were concerns that it came too close to attributing responsibility, and thus fell outside the scope of the FFM’s mandate."
?
Way behind, but on your https://imgur.com/4N4sJjO - seems like a great point. I SHOULD do a little analysis on this. Lucas was app. told the OPCW used different "models" (measures? formulas?) to reach some conclusions or others, and seems sure Henderson's sketch (pres. this one) is wrong, so … I'd guess he means measures in the case of this sketch. I'll just need to sit down with it first. No comment 'til then.
DeleteLucas can provide the detailed measurements he compared it against then. One caveat would be that the FFM being wrong does all depend on interpretation of "still in line with the dimensions of the crater"
DeleteI saw someone claiming that the cylinder was "tumbling" as some explanation for the 50m/s but the FFM haven't described this condition to reach 'consistency' and the person didn't provide any calculations to show it would make enough difference to helicopter height to suddenly be plausible. Just scorn, insults.. they are oh-so-qualified but won't offer an actual answer etc.
Anyway, more than enough from me on Douma- will carry on reading your thoughts with interest.
Relevant - https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1133145748948869121
DeleteBut when the same 'it's-a-conspiracy-theory-unless-I-agree' critics are trying to sell designated terrorist organizations as reliable witnesses, it has all got a bit too ridiculous.
Re. Scott Lucas claims: Technical Secretariat says no.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ScottLucas_EA/status/1133360399779278848
https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/05/s-1755-2019.pdf
Although "the FFM report on the Douma incident does not contain assumptions or statements about the use of an aircraft or the height of flight" seems a bit disingenuous. They know the implications of 'air dropped'.
In that case, you and Scott lost track. As I explained to him "Scott, that referred to blame for the failure to exhume bodies. They word it w/gov. conditions, not specified, then decision not to pursue. To be clear, they later said they didn't mean to blame Damascus for THAT. But they could, AFAIK."
DeleteThe way they played non-attribution in general is quite a thing though. one theory (see Whitaker, al-Bab May 25, or wherever it's the same piece): Henderson's report was too blamey mentioning manual placement. Only one side could do that, they thought, and they aren't allowed to follow clues that just point one way. So they set to emphasize air delivery to be fair - after all, they can mention rebels did sieze some helicopters once, clear across the country, so who knows? Oh hey, that wound up pointing exclusively at Damascus … huh. Good thing they played it fair and kept form being too leading.
Very true, rebels have drones too so all completely objective.
DeleteI was referring to Scott Lucas tweet a few above:
"they refused #Assad regime conditions over further pursuit of bodies."
+ these claims
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/03/opcw-douma-report.html?showComment=1556644565818#c6559222221999641411
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/03/opcw-douma-report.html?showComment=1556653832317#c8026903878952617792
I read VII and Answer 7.1 as not agreeing with Scott Lucas and his 'insider info' at all.
Scott Lucas now appears to accept the possibility that the Henderson report is in fact "technically sound"
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ScottLucas_EA/status/1133846552735342592
Bit of a question mark on Answer 3.3 "the cylinder was considered partially empty at the time" - they *thought* it partially empty or it actually was? As FFM annex 8 #7, having negotiated the risks of a warzone to travel to the site was the "risk involved in manipulating the valve" too great?
Given the nature of the investigation, I'd have thought they would be prepared for gas valves and sampling.
I'm not seeing the difference between reports from consulted experts and the engineering report that had to be 'referred to IIT'. We get to see only selected excerpts at most in FFM reports so seems a really, really weak excuse. Was it ever destined to be published in full?
DeleteIf the FFM really wanted to show they considered possibilities other than air drop they could have analysed the paint on the stairs, traced the cylinder (to see if from e.g. a company in Douma) etc. but no mention of anything... and includes the same typos from the interim report 8 months earlier as if no-one ever read it to check.
Peter Hitchens seems very perceptive on this to me and agrees with your point.
I don't know who this is but in case it comes up elsewhere
Delete"always using the maximum size of cylinder & hole when claiming the cylinder won't fit through the hole instead of the minimum sizes."
A.7.6 "it was concluded that the cylinder impacted the roof as shown in Figure A.7.6" "it is likely that the cylinder landed parallel to the ground"
I see you found this one, fwiw
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ASpinOfTheWheel/status/1136073069171224577
The FFM state it landed parallel to the ground and it is shown in figure 10 as falling through parallel to the floor. Produces figure 13, they just did it without fins. I like how these people ignore what the FFM actually say when it is inconvenient.
The flattened side of the cylinder can be seen in green on figure 10 too so no bouncing, tumbling or anything else they have made up not mentioned by FFM. As they are talking absolute rubbish, I don't think worth further response but FFM statement is the basis for cylinder size comparisons here.
Delete'Tumbling' account doesn't look to have even mentioned Douma until 2019, looks to be simply angry at Michael Kobs' work on MH17. Also claims velocity shown would be just a minimum - which ignores the fact that both cases also have a maximum: the first must not fall through the balcony and the second not damage the cylinder more than is 'consistent'. Logically then, both values are the 'consistent' velocity not simply a 'minimum'. They suggest both reach terminal velocity before impact but the 2 cylinders are comparable.. not a 10m/s difference.
DeleteHere they fudge the drag coefficient to 1.5 for a horizontally falling cylinder.. still resulting in a terminal velocity of 60 m/s.
DeleteGoing around in circles now, balcony cylinder wouldn't reach terminal velocity.. etc. etc.
The Technical Secretariat's answer to Russia never disputed the calculated heights correspond to velocities given, claimed it was 'too difficult' to calculate or that listed velocities related to anything other than the only sensible interpretation that they are the values found to be 'consistent' in each case.
ReplyDeleteShould note however that "The FFM does not base its modelling or calculations on assumptions about the height from which the cylinder could have been dropped" doesn't really answer the point that "Figure 12 (page 19) displays the graphs for the residual velocity of cylinders falling from 150 metres."
DeleteIf the FFM don't make any "assumptions or statements about the use of a helicopter (or any other craft) and the height of flight", why did their experts feel it necessary "to provide an explanation of the cylinder not penetrating completely through the aperture" instead of just providing the consistent velocity? If not assuming it has fallen from a helicopter surely it shouldn't matter that it is *only* 30 m/s unless they wanted it to fall from higher up?
DeleteIf working backwards with no assumptions, when 30m/s is 'consistent' the only explanation needed would be for any mismatch with cylinder damage. Perhaps I'm just being too picky with the wording used and "damage" is what the FFM really meant.
DeleteBut with 3 independent experts supposedly concluding the same thing, I wonder why the FFM would choose the expert's graphic that is "not representing actual impact angle" to illustrate. Seems odd to me that people are defending the quality and meticulousness of the expert analysis when the public have never even seen the details.
https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1142806130726461440
ReplyDelete"That wasn't an official OPCW document"
https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/07/EC-91%20Statement%20-%20final%20-%20EN.pdf
"we are unsettled with the leak of official confidential documents from the Technical Secretariat"
Just to note here the aircraft spotters - in addition to past allegations in the press and by witnesses to the OPCW about the method, darkness, the dust cloud, and the (alleged) witnesses contradicting any low flying helicopter.
ReplyDeleteTwitter search seems to have a problem with sentry_syria so have never been able to verify, but via Bellingcat spotters warned that helicopters were on the way. They would have to fly above an enemy who knew they were coming and knowing somewhere below there are Shilkas and a captured 9K33 Osa.
Still searching for what exactly is 'wrong' in the Henderson report (apart from fins possibly too short):
ReplyDelete"the Henderson "report" does not disclose any calculations. So where is the "science" in it ?"
"omitted from the final OPCW report on the Douma attack (again, one of at least 336) based on its scientific and probable inaccuracies"
"his report wasn't used by the OPCW for good reason. It's BS."
So nothing really. The first would apply to FFM report (or at least would if they hadn't liked the conclusion).
They could cite a couple of minor points and omissions, but on balance those would only make its case stronger. It is notable how people shout it must be wrong, NOT because they just don't like it, but because - something. No real specifics. Our side can an do wade right into the specifics because we keep liking what we find. ie we're right and luckily for the OPCW in the long run, so is Mr. Henderson, whoever else there still cares about this 3-D world where people actually suffer from those chemical weapons problems. It has laws of physics, etc. Some people still get this.
DeleteI'm not sure "liking" would be my word but I understand what you mean.
DeleteGoldsmith links to this thing by Brian Whitaker which doesn't refute or address any of the points in the Henderson report.
"Technical analyses of this kind are treated as confidential because publishing them could lead to the experts being identified and – potentially – result in attempts to influence them. As far as the OPCW is concerned it should be sufficient to say (as it did with the Douma report) that the experts were internationally recognised for their knowledge, skills, and experience, that they came from three different countries, worked separately using different methodologies – and all eventually came to the same conclusions."
".. not to suggest there is no legitimate place for scrutiny of the OPCW's activities; they are a matter of public interest "
"Currently, though, most of the public debate brings confusion rather than clarity – and for some that is the aim. Russia and Syria may claim to be seeking the truth but their objectives are fundamentally political. Similarly with the online activists who dispute the investigators' findings."
The one and only explanation is that everyone should blindly trust the OPCW or else 'bring confusion', fuel "today's online conspiracy theorists" or are simply politically motivated like Syria and Russia (doesn't apply to any other country, NGO or journalist of course). Trust that the detail of the unseen anonymous assessments somehow explain *everything* even if not mentioned in the FFM report, or selected images they choose to show.
Who is allowed to apply scrutiny I wonder? Brian Whitaker who hasn't seen the assessments either? Someone pompous enough to think that only they can 'bring clarity' to the debate? Anyone who trusts the White Helmets that the OPCW delegated their collection work to? Tiresome white knights against 'denialism' with Third Reich fixations?
What a weak excuse to not even publish calculations and as a 'Henderson report debunk' has about as much substance as Dalati's 6 month investigation (intended for no-one) or the evidence for al Kbaina.
And if the 3 other assessments did debunk the Henderson report, the Director-General could have just announced that was why it was rejected with no need to mention mandates or to then pointlessly refer it to the IIT.
DeleteSuggested then is "debunk" wasn't the issue, didn't happen. They just provided an acceptable untruth, instead of the unacceptable truth. Not in an open process, of course. All this IIT referral, any discussion, any mention, was never intended, and only started after the leak made discussing it un-friggin-avoidable.
DeleteAndrew - your Khan Sheikhoun research - I wanted to cite it in a thing I'm working on, but your previous website is gone. Probably has been, sorry took so long to notice. Is there a new site or good place to link, especially re: alleged witnesses and problems with their stories?
Not that I know of, I thought that the only ones willing to wade through the list would be people already aware of the various story trainwrecks. Happy to help if you think there are any I have looked at and you haven't?
DeleteNot a huge issue - was looking for some optional wading, maybe shallow and guided - not a database or 25 links to comments. Just if convenient. Yours is all I thought of right off, and thanks for answering. I'll just skip that link and wrap this thing up.
DeleteMost important part is the one and only eyewitness Ahmed al-Helou demonstrably lying to HRW, FFM left with just Ismail Raslan and his swooping noise. Other AH type stories maybe need too much explanation, I'd have thought anyone really wanting to dig can just find all the cinder block throwing testimony.
DeleteBack to Douma .. the angle of the rebar:
Eliot Higgins shows the wrong side of the hole here, Postol's image on pg 4 showing the damage below is about 2m wide his argument being that it should have created a hole "roughly the diameter of the impacting cylinder".
Postol and Henderson consider an explosion but as an alternative, has it been ruled out that it could have been bent out manually? For whatever reason. And what effect could be produced by digging upwards (as daft as that might sound)?
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/abu-malek-a-syrian-rebel-fighter-who-was-displaced-from-news-photo/1044981550
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/abu-malek-a-syrian-rebel-fighter-who-was-displaced-from-news-photo/1044981572
Helou sounds worth including then, but too late. It was for the Tulsi 2020 post that's finally up now.
DeleteThanks for the tip - I dropped Eliot a few helpful tips.
Digging and pulling could achieve this or other effects, depending how it's done. If you wanted to make a hole for climbing, or to fake a bombing - maybe they'd be that bored. It would fake a bombing well because it looks like one, probably is. The climbing hole, interesting. Presumably the same, with all harmful bars curled back and a ladder affixed. Anyone who can do all that could probably have just cut the concrete + rebar in the first place for a clean hole, but they also take advantage of work done for them by accident.
He was bemoaning the lack of mentions for Latamneh so tried again with my simple question:
Deletehttps://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2019/08/04/tulsi-gabbards-reports-on-chemical-attacks-in-syria-a-self-contradictory-error-filled-mess/comment-page-7/#comment-222725
Perhaps I'm not 'celebrity' enough
https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1161894106341281792
But if we accept sarin is non-persistent by design as explanation for Khan Sheikhoun, months of not degrading at Latamneh is surely impossible. Plus everything else:
https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2019/06/26/the-need-for-radically-reformed-governance-at-the-organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-opcw/#comment-20468
That the sarin matches the KS samples is the summary of KS for me. My guess is the 24th was to explain the sarin related chemicals in Dr Ali Darwish's surgical room days before the attack. Who then winds up dead the next day when the chlorine cylinder does something 'surprising' - I don't think by coincidence.
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2017/03/syria-chlorine-allegations-march-25.html
And even then neither Dr Darwish nor anyone else drops dead like the Douma victims.
But I was just looking at these events and perhaps not many others are interested in looking at valves etc., I'm not so interested in 'fighting' Bellingcat and friends. They've lost the war anyway.
Eliot Higgins was obviously wound up by the involvement of Postol more than anything else. Not easy to condense the points and even Mr Tea is still confused and thinking 150m thanks to the FFM Latamneh diagram, and confused about the KS timing. And doesn't understand that Robert Fisk and OPCW inspectors don't have the same security requirements.. perhaps he is just being obtuse on that.
ReplyDeleteReading the recent exchange and looking back at Scott Lucas' apparent justification for Jaysh al-Islam's use of human shields, if "ethical considerations" had gone by 2015 what were JaI happy to do by 2018.
Henderson #2 - The hole in the bedroom :
FFM figures 7-10 show a flat roof as does appendix 5 in the Henderson report. But as you point out, the rubble is under the water tank and FFM figure A.7.4 (top left) shows that part of the roof is covered by a pile of broken blocks.
So do you think the discrepancies in Henderson results and the size of the hole could be explained by the cylinder hitting a pile of blocks and rubble at an angle *not* parallel to the roof? The chances of it being a nice flat clear bit of roof to hit seem minimal from the photos/videos.
The catch being Henderson and the FFM seem to agree here that it hit "parallel to the ground" and "clearly consistent with a cylinder having impacted in a flat configuration on a horizontal surface".
Another possibility: maybe the hole is somehow larger than the measurements given. The only part where this could be the case is here (if that is rubble balanced over the edge and not connected)
https://imgur.com/ZSiXneA
But I think even this extension wouldn't make the hole big enough for the cylinder and fins to fit through horizontally.
Loc. 4 - I'm not sure how it adds up, but a wall or a pile of bricks got scattered and this hole was punched prior to setting that red tank next to the hole, to make the point that was taken as obvious. It was probably the same event to cause the scattering and the hole, so it was very non-vertical. Seeing that, they might want to add a big red arrow pointing up. That should average out nicely, huh?
DeleteThe extra piece - good question. On review, it seems part of the roof, counts as 'should be gone.' Seems to correspond to the nozzle end, could allow for that but not fins, as you notes. But not even that. Underside damage seems just pulled away with a force applied further back. The big square, the long straight edge along the near side and some corners on the far side of the hole all seem to be from this uppermost layer of (tiles? square-breaking concrete?).
Russia didn't mention tiles but agreed- a very straight edge. There does appear to be a pile of foam at what would be valve-end on floor below but on top of the rubble. Whether this would be enough to angle/bounce the cylinder.. should also be 20cm of concrete landing on top of the foam of course.. and whether it all moves between videos...
Deletehttps://youtu.be/Z-hw9bBCCZM?t=520
Re. Mr Tea, just to note he seems to have gone full blown activist
https://twitter.com/iridium_tea/status/1161171018662187008
Would just like to note that once again if this K Johnson is claiming to be an expert he is a fake
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/ASpinOfTheWheel/status/1163665256675192833
"the max speeds after impact with the floor of the bedroom (i.e. first bounce) are estimated to range from 10 m/s at the low end to 25 m/s at the high end"
This is completely wrong. The impact is with the ceiling as shown in figure 10 not the "first bounce". The two obviously follow on.
The obvious thing here is that A.6.7(b) shows the other cylinder smashing the balcony at 30m/s. Johnson seems to think that the bedroom cylinder having bounced on the floor before slowing to 25m/s leaves no documented damage (Henderson's point- and FFM include no photos to refute it. There is more documented damage to the bed headboard than to the floor below the hole!).
DeleteAlso, having considered it for a while - I think most reasonable explanation for FFM figure 12 "H150" is it uses a start height of 150cm.
Delete150mm even. To match the units given in other images.
DeleteFor posterity
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ASpinOfTheWheel/status/1190058155721547778
"it is on the bed after 1.8 ms."
The bed is around 2.4m long so can see roughly how far the cylinder would have to go in 0.0018 seconds, resulting in that little chip in the headboard. K Johnson 'professional physicist'.
I was following that … guy is a scumbag, and not right, but he clarified he meant after (reaching) 1.8 m/s. If that makes sense, I'd grant it...
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ASpinOfTheWheel/status/1190033930113732608
Delete"it represents the loss of cylinder velocity as it bounces off contact points in the bedroom that had been noted by the investigators. The end point velocity is that of its final position on the bed."
It is actually as Micha describes, the graph is only 0.01 seconds showing the bounce on the bedroom floor and velocity immediately after that (to show there could still be some movement). Johnson seems to think it shows the journey through the room and landing on the bed.. so even ignoring his other tweet ~4m in 0.01s (400m/s).
I don't think there is anything wrong with making mistakes... except when it is someone telling everyone else they aren't qualified to have an opinion and even claiming to be a professional.
The guy's a hack, but I need to review that too. It looks like a bounce, except the "up" part is velocity. Why does it gradually slow to zero before bouncing? That would be a sudden dip and return to same speed I think? I thought I had this, just got off work and I'm unsure...
ReplyDeleteKJ never did answer my query about how many impact point were ever specified, and if either of these two was included. The one even seems to have scratches where the loose harness impacted. Matching marks might be found on some jihadist's mangled toes. https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1190167838847188992
Right- but an asthmatic jihadist who is tired out from spending all day aggressively setting up front line public health care centres every 500m couldn't possibly lift a cylinder up those stairs.
DeletePerhaps better to call it 'impact with the bedroom floor' rather than 'bounce' but put it another way, the FFM have a simulation screenshot for the roof crater formation A.7.6 and only A.7.7 to represent the trajectory inside the room. I suspect asking "can the cylinder break through the ceiling, then hit the 'presumed initial landing point' and still have some movement" would produce more complementary expert analyses than "can the cylinder break through and then land on the bed".
So my interpretation is the same as Micha's but, as with all these things, to see exactly what they've modelled it would be helpful if the OPCW just shared the detail.
"gradually slow" - remember the amount of time represented here e.g. compare with figure 12
Deletehttps://www.mas.bg.ac.rs/_media/istrazivanje/fme/vol46/1/15_sa_hassan_et_al.pdf
The point is it shows an impact with the floor (consider what they are trying to determine), not to show something with an assumed velocity of 10m/s or 25m/s can move through a room for 0.01s. Would be a fairly pointless graph!