last edits Dec. 12
Last week, news broke about a panel discussion in Brussels on October 15 regarding the OPCW's dishonest methods investigating the 2018 Douma incident. A whistleblower from the organization - "Alex" - was there to reveal suppression of evidence on several levels. In attendance were people from Wikileaks-connected Courage Foundation, journalists and professionals including Richard Falk (the U.N. Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian situation), and in absentia José Bustani, the first-ever Director General OPCW, famously forced from office in 2002 for refusing to play by the Americans' rules in the run-up to their war on Iraq. Bustani is quoted as saying about this event (which was used to justify U.S.-led missile attacks on Syria):
“The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing”
The Western mainstream press is silent so far, but alternative sources like Consortium News have run stories on it. The sources I looked at include:
* Courage Foundation: OPCW panel statement/
* Wikileaks.org page on the subject
** report Associated summary report (PDF)
**"A critical analysis of the final report of the Douma investigation left the panel in little doubt that conclusions drawn from each of the key evidentiary pillars of the investigation (chemical analysis, toxicology, ballistics and witness testimonies,) are flawed and bear little relation to the facts."
* Sputnik evil Russian news coverage
* Karin Leukefeld with a German-language report from Nachdenkseiten
** translated to English by Michael Kobs
* Richard Falk's thoughtful dispatch, and more can be found at Tim Hayward's sources collection
I myself have been almost silent on this so far, and haven't fully absorbed the material just yet. But it seems full of valuable revelations, which I plan to cover generally in another post soon. But first I have to risk casting some doubt on all of it by issuing a sort of warning that should have been up already: among the key findings are a few points clearly suggesting chlorine-related compounds were found at such low levels they would essentially prove that no such gas was even released.
OPCW investigators find no chlorine at attack sites in Douma!
If that sounds like your impression of this revelation, or where it points, you could be right. Veteren journalist Jonathan Steele, for example, attended the panel in Brussels himself and reported back in a BBC interview (here citing Tim Hayward t'sranscript) how:
"...(the whistleblower) claims he was in charge of picking up the samples in the affected areas, and in neutral areas, to check whether there were chlorine derivatives there … and he found that there was no difference. So it rather suggested there was no chemical gas attack [meaning no gas release] because in the buildings where the people allegedly died there was no extra chlorinated organic chemicals than in the normal streets elsewhere. And I put this to the OPCW for comment, and they haven’t yet replied. But it rather suggests that a lot of this was propaganda…"
That would obviously be quite interesting, and to many casual and even involved observers, that's good enough to take it as probably true. But this post may worth reviewing before you go running with that. I've followed the issue closely, and to me that notion raises huge and puzzling questions, as it had always seemed chlorine was released in pretty copious amounts, although "attack" isn't the right word for what I suspect happened.
It still remains a fact that chlorine rarely kills in a way that 35 people would drop dead at one location. So this chlorine would not explain the deaths, and I'm still just as sure as the OPCW FFM's engineering sub-team was that nothing related fell from a helicopter. I still think those people were murdered in a gas chamber somewhere else, and the scenes were staged. But much evidence has always suggested chlorine gas was released to help make the case presented by the massacre managers.
I've had to do this a bit lately - champion non-core subjects that someone has made controversial enough to cause confusion (as I see it) that harms the overall search for truth. (previously supporting part of the Bellingcat take in the M4000 binary sarin controversy, and work on other claims from the same source are in progress). It's not fun on balance, and perhaps not needed. But perhaps it is needed, so I come out defending a point raised by the shady and politicized OPCW's Syria "Fact-Finding Mission" (FFM), because I still suspect that point was true, and I maintain truth has to be our basis always, not just when the source of it is politically acceptable.
Withheld findings
From the Wikileaks report, section 2. Chemical Analysis: "Many, if not all, of the so- called ‘smoking gun” chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be “not naturally present in the environment” (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc)."
I'm no expert, but I suppose this is true and that the levels for most of these will normally be very low. They will vary some from place to place, so it helps to compare local norms to the site in question. Wikileaks continues to note the FFM's report (Annex 4 para 7) agrees on "the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such chlorinated organic derivatives." This makes it interesting that, as noted,"no analysis results for these same control samples ... were reported." Leukefeld heard "samples from the natural environment to determine the natural content of such substances were not taken." It could be they were gathered and analyzed, but for some reason, the findings were not included in the FFM's final word to the public on their investigation.
Furthermore, the report doesn't give either side of the data to compare; the chemicals found on crime-scene items are listed, but not the quantities, in ppm or any units. Wikileaks continues:
"Although the report stresses the ‘levels’ of the chlorinated organic chemicals as a basis for its conclusions (para 2.6), it never mentions what those levels were — high, low, trace, sub-trace? Without providing data on the levels of these so-called ‘smoking-gun’ chemicals either for background or test samples, it is impossible to know if they were not simply due to background presence."I don't mean to understate the importance of this exclusion of environmental analysis results. But I don't want to overstate it either, because this doesn't in itself prove or even strongly suggest the lack of chlorine release it could easily be taken as. I would reason that the levels around the source of any sizeable release should be much, much higher than the usual range for background noise. In that case, it would be reasonable - if not technically proper - to infer there was a release simply from the high readings, even if nothing at all is given for comparison.
So the results aren't shown, on either end, and it's natural to wonder what that reflects. Let's consider three main possible reasons for that:
1) to hide a lack of chlorine (so the mention of unusual levels is a lie)
2) to create a false lead to that end to get truth-seekers misleading each other (contradicted by the note that levels were an unusual)
3) for no motive, just in some kind of random oversight where high levels are mentioned, but not quantified.
So left at just "unseen," the levels could be too low for chlorine release, or high enough to suggest that after all. As it happens, there are a few clues to give some indication. But unfortunately, they point in the same two opposing directions as the general dispute they support.
Actual too low, or even sub-normal, levels?
As of the recent panel, and never prior to that, we hear that chlorine findings were abnormally low at the incident sites in Douma - low even for usual background levels, let alone for an actual release. Karin Leukefeld's Nachdenkseiten report states, from the reporter's attendance and detailed observation: "The chlorinated organic chemicals found in the samples were many times less than those found in the natural environment (e.g. water)." The exact source for that was't clear to me, but it should refer to the alleged attack sites (location 2 and 4). Because pointing out that the control samples had unusually low chlorine levels means nothing.
(Add: Michael Kobs suggests it's just less than found in chlorinated water, but more than normally found in the environment, so fairly normal levels - but again that's presumably at the apparent release sites where readings should be above normal.)
More directly, the whistleblower "Alex" himself is cited as explaining how "the chemical substances found (including bornyl chloride) were preservatives “in a lower dose than in the coffee you drink”." And further, "an internal correspondence" is said to relate how “In most cases only 'traces’ were recognizable, in parts per billion (PPB), as low as 1 - 2 ppb.”
1 or 2 ppb being reliably detected means at least 1-2 billion (molecules?) of material need sampled for just TWO molecules of the chlorinated compounds to appear. How many billions are in the standard sample, and how many of the target chemicals need to be present for any to be found? Remember ONE is the lowest possible number above zero. I have a hard enough time with huge numbers and tiny particles to be sure, but … I'm not certain that makes total sense even in principle, let alone per the still-unclear details about which chemicals in what quantities vs. what norms for the same, locally or in general. Is it possible someone misread ppm (parts per mission) as ppb? That doesn't sound likely, but it would make a huge 1,000-fold difference, for 1,000-2,000 ppb.
And in context, it seems quite strange to me that even after the easily-obtained chlorine-looking tanks were brought in, after signs consistent with copious release were created (see below), there was just no chlorine release. I could believe such a failure coming from the defeated Jihadists of Douma, and easily ... with adequate reason. They can really exceed at failure. But even these credible-seeming claims somehow don't cut it for me. In fact we hear of unusually low levels that almost suggest some kind of anti-chlorine was leaked from those cylinders to make those areas "several times" cleaner than normal. That just makes me suspect we have something wrong and we're at risk of getting confused here.
Finally, the Wikileaks summary includes a related point: "Although biomedical analyses supposedly contributed to the conclusions of the report (para 2.17), the same report is unequivocal in stating that “no relevant chemicals were found” in biological samples (Table A5.2)." First, in an OPCW context, the word "relevant" tends to mean "relevant to the Chemical Weapons Convention" - banned substances like sarin, etc. Chlorine isn't banned in itself, but its use as a weapon is, so they would call it relevant, I think. But it does not turn up directly in tests (CDC), so its not being found in tests is irrelevant to its possible presence, and supports neither view.
Elevated and varying levels?
In sharp contrast to all that, the FFM report makes several claims about specific levels that would have to be lies, if the above impression were accurate.
As mentioned, paragraph 2.6 in the report s-1731-2019(e) claims that objects at both sites ("Locations 2 and 4" specified) "had been in contact with one or more substances containing reactive chlorine." This is explained as "based on the levels of chlorinated organic derivatives ... which are not naturally present in the environment." (emphasis mine - this is in direct contrast with the claims "Alex" brings to light).
A point 9.1 states the same thing almost verbatim, and these further passages add to a picture of varying levels that were seen as higher in areas closer to the cylinders:
"8.18 The analysis results (Annex 5) of the samples taken by the FFM from the cylinders and their proximity to other sampled points exposed to reactive chlorine at both locations, show higher levels of chloride in addition to the presence of chlorinated organic compounds." (meaning: they didn't necessarily compare with unaffected areas nearby, but did find variations within the contaminated zone?)
Paragraph 8.33 relates the FFM's sampling the slat of wood found "damp and softened" under the cylinder at location 4. "The laboratory analysis showed that the wood sample had the highest content of chlorinated organic compounds of all wood samples taken." (suggesting various levels were recorded, and this was the highest).
These previously read to me as reasonable and probably true. But now they stand challenged, or at least that's how I read the implications here.
The published levels
(added Dec. 12) Here's an example of reported levels: OPCW FFM report S/1636 on the 25 March, 2017 chlorine attack provides, on page 26, found levels for various chemicals in parts per
million (ppm), including "Cl-" = combined chlorinated compounds? Among the higher returns were:
- soil sample 09SLS with 2,469ppm
- soil sample 41SLS with 8,174ppm
- blanket 36SDS with 7,496ppm
We hear the same kind of results for Douma were withheld. As Karin Leukefeld put it "Although the report stresses the ‘levels’ of the chlorinated organic chemicals as a basis for its conclusions (para 2.6), it never mentions what those levels were — high, low, trace, sub-trace? Without providing data on the levels of these so-called ‘smoking-gun’ chemicals either for background or test samples, it is impossible to know if they were not simply due to background presence."
I accepted that until I got this indirect tip from supposed chemistry expert "Irridium Tea" taunting me that "Environmental residues, both organic and inorganic, make a rock solid case for chlorine gas. 13,000 ppm Cl-? 1100 ppm on a wall? That's not normal background." He was surprised to learn I wanted to know more, refused to give his source, and then muted me. But it was easy to find, and I should have found it sooner. Report s-1731-2019 includes a TABLE A5.1 detailing environmental findings.
https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/03/s-1731-2019%28e%29.pdf
Below are the six relevant entries by location (3 total), each item as described, then (Sample code - ref. no.) then the given levels for "chloride" and sometimes various metals (not sure why, but it's interesting)
Loc. 2:
Dry wipe of the cylinder thread (level 3)
(Sample code: 15WPS - 20180421190915)
chloride: 13,000 ppm (IC),
iron: 11 ppm (ICP-MS),
manganese: 36 ppm (ICP-MS),
zinc: 10,000 ppm (ICP-MS)
Dry wipe from kitchen wall above the oven (level 2)
24WPS
20180421190924
chloride: 1,100 ppm (IC),
iron: 1.2 ppm (ICP-MS),
manganese: 0.4 ppm (ICP-MS),
zinc: 1.7 ppm (ICP-MS)
Location 4
Dry wipe from nozzle, front part next to thread
11WPS-L4
20180425178811
chloride: 15,000 ppm (IC),
iron: 390 ppm (ICP-MS),
manganese: 54 ppm (ICP-MS),
zinc: 4,700 ppm (ICP-MS)
Chips of paint from wall behind bed.
14SDS-L4
20180425178814
chloride: 2,600 ppm (IC),
zinc: 150 ppm (ICP-MS)
Gloves from stairs
19SDS-L4
20180425178819
chloride: 17,000, ppm (IC)
zinc: 1,500 ppm (ICP-MS)
Location 1 (medical point - visited on 1 May)
Concrete dust 5-13 on right hand side at wall
S6
20180501177906
chloride: 830 ppm (IC)
(Note the similarity in high zinc levels between the cylinder nozzles and those gloves. Clearly they were used to handle the cylinder at location 4. Was that from when the valve was last opened or closed prior to the 25th?)
The highest return from 25-3 is 8,174 ppm - and it's not that big a fluke - the next highest had nearly 7,500 parts for every million. This sounds way higher than the ones "Alex" describes at Douma. But the FFM claims to have higher-yet returns from there, up to 13, 15, and 17,000 ppm (though all numbers are clearly rounded off).
Quick research says 10 ppm is considered to be “Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH). Odor threshold "reported to range widely from 0.02 to 3.5 ppm." U.S. Occupational thresholds vary from 1ppm increasingly to a standard of 0.5 ppm. (USDA.gov). (This refers to chlorine itself, and notes: "There are no airborne Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL) for exposures to the other chlorine containing compounds formed during water treatment and disinfection. In general the limit of 0.5 ppm has been used to monitor and evaluate exposures to all inorganic chlorine-containing chemicals.")
In Douma, it's said the levels of certain compounds, if not the combined total, was sometimes in the range of 1-2 ppb = 0.001 or 0.002 ppm, albeit many days after the events. Let's say that's per-compounds, and there are, say, 22 compounds that could turn up, with a few zeros and 1-2ppb being a low end and an average of, say, 15ppb. If we multiply "let's say" numbers, we can get 15x22 = 330ppb combined chlorinated compounds. That translates to 0.330 ppm. That would be an extra-safe environment for a dishwasher working 8 hours a day.
330 might be quite a ways off the mark, but that could go either way: 22 compounds may be a high guess. So let's keep that. 17,000 ppm on those gloves seem to be special, so let's use the 15,000 and 13,000 ppm recorded at the two cylinder nozzles several days later. Comparing that to 0.33 gives a 39,000 - 45,000-fold difference. That is an enormous discrepancy. There's no hope of correlating these claims by a simple difference in rounding off numbers, for example. Either the FFM made up these high numbers, or else this whistleblower and anyone who agree with him are somehow wrong on this subject.
Visually proven release?
However they don't stand alone; there are more questionable clues like the reported bleach-like smell, and then the visual clues for such release, which are harder to work around. These clues are why I credited the FFM's statements, and include at least these:
In a gas-free scenario, that fire would have less reason to exist, and the frost would have no reason.
The other cylinder found at location 4 was half empty but not leaking at the time of FFM's visit (meaning it was opened then closed - noted by Sander H) From report s-1731-2019(e), point 8.33: "From what the team observed, there did not appear to be any leakage from the cylinder at the time the team visited the location. … No chlorine gas was detected in the room by the detection equipment used by the team."
There's no sign of frost on here as the New York Times got a news Emmy, in part, for claiming (that's dust, and it's on the top instead of the bottom, and also over the whole bed and table, etc. - not just the metal in contact with the cold liquid), so it's probably not actively leaking at the time of any of these views. And no one tested the cylinder to see just what it held and might have released. But there is a chlorine-consistent shade of yellow-green visible - perhaps the actual gas or, I think, staining from its release - all across the bed and the wooden board, especially in the lower-lying areas. Below is a compilation of 3 images of this scene over time, and then yet another couple of views.
The middle view is from Yaser al-Domani's video the following day, with a slightly wider area stained, but now showing dull orange-brown where it was a chlorine color.
Then more gas was released and fresh green staining was added prior to the Russian military's visit and video a few days later (bottom view), leaving the bed damp, heavy, and now collapsed, besides saturated with that color (here perhaps a dingier shade than in the top view, because this too is starting to turn brown?).
They also noted in report: "The FFM team observed a viscous liquid throughout the room, which was not apparent in videos." They don't specify the color, but I bet it was reddish-brown. If so, it's also seen in small amounts right around the cylinder's valve, after someone re-capped it (or just wiped the dust off the cap's edge?): see damp brown areas below, then over time, see the metal rust and corrode and drip corrosion onto the bed, as if it were all exposed to chlorine gas and then water, which would cause hydrochloric acid to form (views: an early one, Russia 1, FFM view at bottom). Note the valve stem at the top that sticks out more in the bottom FFM view. It's getting turned, which probably means opened, then screwed back in to differing degrees (but probably to the point of being closed in all cases).
The FFM also noted "The same liquid was observed also before the entrance to the apartment and on disposable gloves present at the location." In the report's annex 5, the gloves are tagged 19SDS-L4, and it says they were found to contain: Dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid (chlorinated compounds), 1-methyl-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene (TNT, explosive), amino dinitrotoluene (a TNT precursor) and Permethrin, a pesticide. What an odd palette. Maybe the cylinder was carried by gloved hands from a chemical factory where explosives and pesticides are made?
Conclusion
If levels were higher near the cylinders, as FFM reports, this suggests they are the source for any local increase - meaning they released at least some of their contents. But if those samples only had relevant compounds in the 1-2 ppb range, as an internal message is suggested as stating, how did they manage such a minute leak, what was the lower-yet background level, and how did that get so unusually low?
Clearly, these info sets don't work well together - something doesn't add up. Either:
* the FFM lied to even get chlorine in the picture, and a number of coincidental explanations are needed for all the visual signs, or ...
* someone is confused, for example mistaking ppm (parts per million) for ppb, for example (that alone would make a thousand-fold difference), perhaps combining a few errors, exacerbated by the lack of peer review that comes with being suppressed) or ...
* it's possible someone is deliberately lying about the low levels. Do remember the OPCW's credibility is "under attack" and therefore they might launch a counter-attack, using tainted disinformation to damage their opponents by making them into misled and easily-steered morons. I don't suspect that's the case here, but I don't see ruling it out yet either.
Those visual clues are numerous and consistent. They don't become a pile of strange coincidences without a very good reason that I doubt we have, even now. So I have a hard time with the first option there. And I'm having a hard time with the other two as well. A little help here? Is there another reasonable option I didn't think of?
