M4000 Binary or Unitary?

October 7, 2019
(not very rough but incomplete, to be updated)
updates Oct. 13, 18

Open-source researcher Philip Watson, in the course of exposing a "M4000 deception" claims the chemical bomb linked to a deadly sarin attack in 2017 "is not designed to carry sarin, it’s a unitary bomb to be filled with the chemical agent and is not suitable for mixing binary precursors." And furthermore, "as Syria’s sarin is binary the M4000 is not suitable for its delivery." (The M4000 Deception part 2) Syria's declared and destroyed sarin stocks had used two precursors, held separately until mixing just prior to use (thus binary - two-part.). But he claims it's a unitary-only weapon by definition, if not by design, and therefore - basically - Syria was innocent for any release of sarin at Khan Sheikhoun.

Watson has just now expanded on the theme greatly in The M4000 Deception part 3 where he states:

"Originally Eliot Higgins and, self-styled chemical weapons expert, Dan Kaszeta claimed the sarin was mixed before it was poured into the M4000. After realising how mad of an idea that was they have changed that to the sarin was mixed in a bomb on the ground before being loaded onto the jet. The problem with this theory is that the bomb in question was a bulk filled unit designed for a single active ingredient, not for mixing. This didn’t stop Higgins from changing the bomb from a unitary, bulk filled unit, to a binary unit just like that. As I have shown, all available evidence points to the M4000 being a unitary filled bomb – therefore sarin can not be mixed in it."

(emphasis mine) This assumed fact has not been established that I've seen, and all the evidence I'm seeing suggests it was designed to and very could be used to mix binary sarin.

Watson raises several related issues with prior claims on filling with pre-mixed sarin, filling facilities, in-flight mixing, obviously dubious claims of mobile mixing labs for chemical Scud missiles (probably on loan from Saddam Hussein). There's also a debatable assumption that any sarin Syria's government could field has to be binary. I'm not going to go into these issues at the moment and will focus just on the basic clues about design and logic. Can I see and agree why the M4000 should be ruled out as a delivery device for binary sarin, as Watson claims? As far as I can see, definitely not. Acknowledging the limits of my knowledge here, Watson's conclusion seems extremely unsound to me, and not a good basis on which to question the opposition's claims.

First, even if his case held up, it's unlikely to convince anyone who needs convincing. I don't think any other binary weapon has been linked to a CW incident in the 7+ years they've been alleged. Most cases don't specify the weapon very well, but the improvised "volcano" rocket used in the 2013 Ghouta attacks had one big space filled with pre-mixed government sarin, as so many people totally believe. I'm not so sure about the Al-Nusra-linked plastic grenades probably manufactured for them in Turkey and blamed for some sarin attacks by helicopter earlier in 2013, but they probably were undivided as well. Many accept it was all Syria's, would accept it was unitary. Expecting otherwise for this delivery device - the most normal, professional one yet alleged - would make one vulnerable to disappointment.

Secondly, Watson has failed to convince me this is a unitary weapon. I don't have a stake either way, as I don't think any aerial bomb was used in this false-flag event. I just want this background information to make sense like it should. The following breaks down my standing issues.

Image disagreement: variant vs. before-and-after
"The fact the schematic depicts the M4000 as unitary" is not a fact as far as I know, but in his part 3 Watson complains it "has now been ignored as Higgins moves away from the fixed and mobile mixing devices idea. Therefore, he needs the M4000 to be a binary munition to replace the loss of his previous theories." Or, regardless of previous theories, he thinks it's a binary weapon. Watson takes issue with Higgins deciding the schematics show two binary weapons in different states, but that might be correct.

I'm not yet certain who's right here, and on what basis they made their call. But as I'll explain, the Higgins-Bellingcat view makes more sense and seems much better founded. To start, here's the disagreement in visual form.

So to summarize, the disagreement is between these two views of what's shown:
* The binary MYM6000 before mixing, then after mixing, and the binary M4000 shown only after mixing, with its pre-mixing view simply never shared. (Bellingcat view)
* A "binary variant" and "unitary variant" for the MYM6000, and a "unitary variant" only for the M4000, with its one unitary kind of fill.

I asked Watson if there's a "unitary variant" was there a binary non-variant or main version of the M4000, and if so how did he decide which was used. He explained to me he meant simply "Variant of aerial chemical munition" where - by his other words, it seems there is no other variant or type. It could have better said "M4000 unitary weapon" by definition, as that's what he claims.

Binary weapon parts are included 
Watson did not get the labels translated before launching into his analysis ( "As I don’t speak Arabic I am unaware of what is being claimed in the text apart from maybe labeling the different parts of the images." M4000 Deception part 1..." ). That was up to Amin25111's later transcription at, I think, Qoppa999's request. That work (compiled below) includes a "mixing arm" at the rear, besides the previously noted dual filling ports. Why a unitary agent would need two holes to get inside remains unclear, and just why a mixing is needed to mix that singular stuff with itself is also unclear.

On the MYM6000 bomb, Amin also sees the central diaphragm (middle of 3 rings along the main body's length) is also labeled for a wall or barrier (as shown), and the M4000 has the same, as highlighted below. In fact this member's profile has an unusual L shape as drawn, suggesting some special use besides structural support. Drawing a barrier in with a red line makes total sense, doesn't it?

This would put the barrier in between the two fill ports, allowing a separation into two fillable compartments one could fill with two precursors. And that might be why a "mixing arm" comes in? Watson saw no reason for one and considered it as useless as the nipples they put on the male bombs for no reason. A little puzzling why they would bother, since this is for a sure a unitary bomb...

The "paddle" or "mixer" is not labeled in the images, but it is apparently some kind of object probably with just that purpose - likely made of radial fins connected with an outer ring, similar to the tail assembly, but with spiked ends. It probably extends with a spiraling motion of the mixing arm it's connected to, reaches  the divider wall, perhaps made of mica, and crushes it apart, while also stirring the ingredients like a blender.

Is it not shown for the M4000 because it never had one, or because it wasn't thought to be relevant to that post-mixing view? It's also not shown on the MYM unitary/after view, which also lacks a fuze (the label there just says "ring" indicating the empty space it looks like). If the lack of this mixer indicates a "variant," does this unitary use of the weapon also, by design, lack a fuse so it can't detonate? No. Maybe it's missing from that post-impact view. So some missing parts in the drawings don't mean that much.

In general, all these parts built into the M4000 are consistent with binary design and are useless otherwise. Why override that to conclude those features have never been and can never be used and their inclusion amounts to nothing but a minor mystery?

Other supports are weak or unexplained
Watson cites known uses as a guide to understanding possible unknown uses: "Bellingcat attempting to create their own truths again. Syria held vast stocks of unitary sulphur mustard and the unitary munitions were for just that. The M4000 was used with sulphur mustard. It's a unitary bomb." (tweet) Well, some were re-purposed for conventional explosives use - reports cited by Bellingcat, and 2013-14 finds were presumed as examples. So do we conclude it's strictly an explosive bomb because it was used that way? No, because we also have the reports of them filled with sulfur mustard. But since we don't have reports of them ever being filled with or meaning to be filled with binary sarin, that means it's never happened or is even impossible? Even when everything we can see about the design suggests that IS the original intent of this weapon?

Watson wasn't able to make much of case of his own here, but was able to cite two  presumably well-versed experts from both sides of the Assad-blame issue assuring us the M4000 is only used for bulk-fill materials.  The skeptical former weapons inspector Scott Ritter said so (tweet) as did  regime-change activist and Bellingcat ally Greg Koblentz (tweet).

That certainly sounds convincing in itself. But given the questions I have, I need more information. I asked both of them (Ritter, Koblentz) a few days ago and haven't gotten a response yet from either. As far as I know, both of them are confused. For example, maybe Koblenz saw the mixed fill and no wall in the schematic and let someone convince him it was never separate. Then maybe Ritter agreed with him, seeing an off-narrative point (it clashes with the view of his allies at Bellingcat) that was therefore presumably true, but he didn't go check and think it through.

But then maybe either or both of these men know something I don't to clarify why the M4000 is or can only be unitary, despite all the design features to the contrary.

Follow-Up
Hoping there is some resolution to put here.
---
As of 10-13, not much to report. I started a discussion thread here that, with Qoppa's help, yielded some minor support to the view the M4000 and air bombs in general were not used much for sulfur mustard and maybe instead for sarin.

My start: "#Syria #M4000 bomb "used for sulfur mustard and NOT sarin" Why? What do we know?
@RealScottRitter says it's "bulk fill only—a Mustard bomb." By design? Exclusive use? Column Lynch cites 2 experiments to SEE IF it would work in M4000. Anything else? Not convinced yet."

@Qoppa999 adds a few tweets Oct 9 including:
"The claim it was "meant for sulfur mustard" seems to go back to Koblentz's tweet, "probably" indicating that this part, unlike the main statement, is just his own conclusion.
Any more evidence @PhilipWatson_?"
Koblents says M4000 is bulk-fill only, and expands that the bulk-fill weapons were probably used for sulfur mustard. That sounds a bit like Scott Ritter's likely source for his exact claim.

@Qoppa999: ""To study the stability" does not sound like regular testing but like experimenting with something not done before ....
That the M4000 was used for mustard is only Koblentz's inference/guess. Not from declaration."

It could well be true, but the problem is it could well be a confused assumption, and thus not a good basis to presume half the features of the M4000 were built with no evident purpose.

October 18 add: Watson raises the point, and it's worth considering, that mustard gas in the M4000 might be tested just to double-check its designed use. That's true, but these tests would even better explain something new (un-tested), and an unusual experiment adding new information makes more sense for the late declaration this came in. How much sense does it make to declare, basically: "oh by the way, we also took two of those sulfur mustard M4000 bombs and conducted a routine test to double-check that it works. Sorry we forgot to mention that before. But we destroyed those two... "
A Development: (tweet by me) "One of 2 experts on record as suggesting this bomb #M4000 was used for pre-mixed fill only, not for binary agents - @RealScottRitter admits he didn't really know that, it just seemed like that from the picture. Cool, I kind of suspected as much." Re-tweeting Ritter's tweet: "I have previously stated that the M4000 CW bomb was a unitary fill only. My observation was derived from this Russian-provided schematic, nothing more. I don’t have any informed insight into the technical characteristics of Syrian chemical weapons beyond what this diagram shows."

Well, he also added a "mustard bomb" part that didn't come from the Russians. Koblentz appears to be the most likely source for that detail. And I suspect he reached that guess from noting the M4000's "bulky" appearance and the known bits about sulfur mustard tests with thet weapon. It wouldn't be a terrible guess, considering. But it turns out it's probably wrong. I've asked him as well. noting the confusion he's caused, the clash with Bellingcat's reading, but no reply - he didn't notice or maybe he likes the confusion? ( First request, Oct. 3 - follow-up with image)

Philip Watson likes the confusion he's caused, and continues to use it as a plank for one his central arguments. October 9 tweet: "Take Koblentz at his word on this. "These designations match bombs declared by Syria to the OPCW." Tie the pieces together." Pieces given, with notes:
* "Aug 2016, Colum writes Syria was using the M4000 with mustard" (a bit, in tests)
* "Nov 2017 Koblentz notes M4000 use with mustard" (by design, raising questions...)
* "(Nov.) 2017 Schematic depicts bulk fill" (disputed, and features only useful w/binary application are also shown in the same images).
"Take Koblentz at his word on this" and use it to tie up a few other dubious readings to try and reach the truth about the M4000 - that's not a formula I would propose.