More on Al-Lataminah, 30-3-17

Re-Considering the IIT's Nine Unsolved CW Cases
More on Al-Lataminah, 30-3-17
March 16, 2020
typos + cleanup, dated updates, March 19, 2020


There were several lesser points about Philip Watson's M4000 research I didn't finish writing up after three posts dealt with a serious issue and two egregious clusters of error. Among those left off, two at least deserve mention for general interest, and one of them merits this post that could include them both. Both points relate to the 30 March, 2017 alleged sarin attack in al-Lataminah that displayed the alleged weapon best (maybe too well). First the other issue, then the one on unusually rectangular debris.

Sarin in the Wrong "Crater"?
A recent and informative update from the Working Group on Syria Propaganda and Media included a positive reference to this claim (I'm a member, but wasn't consulted on this, or I probably would have prevented it):*
"Another commentator has noted anomalies in the published report of the FFM on the alleged incident in Ltamenah on 30 March 2017: no explanation was given for the detection of sarin in samples of gravel provided by the White Helmets that were purportedly recovered from a “crater” containing no munition fragments some 200 metres south of the alleged impact point."
http://syriapropagandamedia.org/update-on-the-opcws-investigation-of-the-douma-incident

* 3-19: "probably would have prevented" - that's been called petty, as if I'd force a rejection of Watson's valid work. To clarify: If I were asked, I'd point out early on (as I did later and do again below) the assumption behind that point was unfounded. Then I reasoned they would agree the point wasn't as solid as it seemed, and considering just the one specific point was raised about that alleged attack, they would "probably" (as I put it) include a different leading point instead of that inconclusive one, or maybe include no examples at all. If they had picked another finding from Watson that seemed correct, I wouldn't have complained. But "that's not how it went down, man." I just like to get things right, and for those around me and groups I'm in and as many people as possible to get it right. end add.

First, I just noticed he's got the scene wrong, with "withered grass crater" set about 60 meters north of "debris collection area" where "first debris" landed (after some flight, but clustered and landing arguably backwards?). They're actually the one and same spot, as Michael Kobs and I and others had geolocated it (where a truck parks at a faint cross road just south of three taller trees along the edge of the western fields). The following shows this (middle) compared to OPCW FFM (left) and Watson (right). The other location in consideration here is "crater" per FFM, at the bottom of their image, also indicated by Watson, not in those by Kobs and I (smaller area focus).

FFM map and other points cited in this post can be seen in this report: 

S/1548/2017, 2 November 2017

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

Another set of images to clarify this cross-road is the location of the kicked-up soil, blackened vegetation, and debris recovery - see how it's pretty much in the middle of that dirt road sloping down on the right (and that item boxed in red is the FFM's item 08SDS, apparently the base of the binary weapon's "mixing arm"):

That makes the distance between craters about 140 meters - still too far for sarin to fly. But was sarin found at the other crater?

The “crater” - where one of three conventional bombs presumably impacted - is placed by Watson unclearly "between 160 and 290 yards south from the “impact point” and its associated debris" (146-165m). And he read how "gravel from crater" tested positive for sarin as well, despite it having no sarin bomb impact alleged. That would be interesting, but probably isn't.

Watson cited the OPCW FFM report S/1548/2017, noting how this "is the only location in their report that is referred to as a “crater”" - he thinks without a single exception, and therefore a major deception is suggested in its "TABLE 2: SAMPLES AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM DESIGNATED LABORATORIES." Sarin and common breakdown products found in and near "crater" must mean in the wrong spot, so likely planted! For some realism, they planted it at least to 50 meters out too.
https://www.hiddensyria.com/2019/09/05/opcw-ffm-willing-dupes-at-lataminah-again/

I wouldn't be so sure. In fact, I find it much more likely they got this from the usual spot that's not USUALLY called "crater" - though it is one - and in the assembly of that table, it was given, UNUSUALLY, as "crater." Has that been somehow ruled impossible? As I'll show below, that wouldn't be the only contradiction between the text and the tables in this same report.

A simple imprecision with terminology would mean nothing's amiss on that point, and still the sarin may have been planted there - it won't be that easy to prove.

Add 3-19: One more re-consideration of the suggested ironclad rule that "crater" always means the other spot and the spot w/sarin and bomb parts is always called "impact point," even in the report's tables. "Impact point" appears just once in the full report, indeed relating to the sarin impact point. "Crater" appears just 2 times, in two references to the same sample - in the applicable table 2 and table A3.1. Can the rule be seen there? No. Soil and gavel samples have these given locations:
- "under metal piece" x 5
- "crater" x 1
- "50 m away" (from crater?) x 1
- unspecified x 3
- "impact point" = 0
If that rule really applies, the report would also suggest there were no samples taken at the sarin impact point, or it somehow went unspecified, while the locales proving a deception WERE specified. That's possible, but kind of odd. end add.

Rectangular Debris
= Fake?
On to the more interesting point. Watson on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/PhilipWatson_/status/1183188233305411586
"And those straight, almost perfect, edges! Only bomb explosions in #Syria create them! All part of an upcoming report." This issue emerges mainly with debris found after the same incident - Al-Lataminah, 30-3-17. The debris has been fairly well identified as likely from a M4000 chemical bomb once stockpiled by the Syrian military. That's not a certain ID, and there are differences from a published schematic, but it's still likely enough. And it seems that was designed for binary use (precursors can be held separately inside and mixed to produce sarin just before use), contrary to Watson's assertions. (Since then, officially, Syria has foresworn chemical weapons, given up its sarin-production capabilities, and destroyed its related weapons or - as is the case with the M4000 - re-purposed them to hold conventional explosives, for use in fighting the foreign-backed insurgents then occupying much of Syria).
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/10/m4000-id-structural-questions.html
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/10/m4000-binary-or-unitary.html

Watson's tweet noted the rectangularity issue with fragment 07SDS, the one filler cap (of two found) that's on an almost perfectly rectangular fragment. In fact some pieces show multiple straight edges, all parallel and perpendicular, with numerous perfect right angles shown. He doesn't specify what to make of it, but the reader could easily slip to imagining Islamists with hacksaws cutting up the bomb up into squares, maybe just so they can be stacked in a box during transport to the locale, with no care if it makes sense.

I would only be slightly surprised to learn they were this stupid. But here, I don't suppose so. The straight edges coexist with rough ones and with severe bending, as if they had been through the detonation of a bomb with partially self-segmenting skin. First, all the possible illustrations of this among the debris.

Note on dates received: the repot says samples were handed to FFM on 17 July and then 17 August. The table listing them, however, gives no August dates, instead giving 17 and 18 July as the two dates. It's not clear if the 18/7 or 17/8 date is correct, but two consecutive days makes more sense than two days a month apart, and this seems like someone's dyslexic slip, and a contradiction between the table and the report text - where the table seems more likely to be correct.

07SDS
"Metal piece" received 17/7
"The metal plate to which it is attached is roughly 5 mm thick and is ruptured on all sides. One side has a very straight cut." Fill port cap, seen here from the inside. It's about 19 cm along its straight-cut side (using the ruler from one photo on another), so about 190mm. Width: at least 135mm with an unclear far edge.

11SDS
"Metal piece" received 17/7
This displays that square-ness to an even higher degree. These generic slats (with traces of app. dark green paint) are thinly connected to each other on one side, and otherwise hanging loose with NINE right angles and NINE very straight sides between them. The FFM report gives a 5mm thickness (as the M4000's skin seems to be), and each piece measured at "approximately 180 to 200 mm" long, with a total width at the connected end of about 320 mm. The outer two slats are 180mm long, while the middle one is longer (200mm) and narrower) - (maybe 120mm for the two and 80mm for the middle one?). This was likely part of the outer skin, wrapping around 1/4 to 1/5 of the bomb's circumference, wherever the blast damage might be lesser (tail end?).

10SDS
"Four metal pieces" received 17/7 - these are warped, separate, looking perhaps thinner than the usual, but that might be a visual trick, and they all have roughly the same, uniform size. At least 4 notably straight edges are seen between them, with a couple others likely, if too distorted to call.

update 3-19: 10SDS probably doesn't play in. As the FFM's report explains: "10SDS comprises four smaller metal pieces. Less rust is visible than on the other items. Fragments are grey with sharp twisted parts and are made of thinner material than most of the other items. The deformations indicate that explosion has torn them off of a larger system. Although the flat lines on the sides, together with the general shape and thickness, indicate that these items could potentially be a part of the tailfin assembly, the exact origin of this part could not be determined."

04SDS(B)
(is there a 04SDS(A)?) "Metal piece" received 18/7 (meaning 17/8?).
Taken as a section of nosecone ballast (heavy material, gentle curve of outer surface) "04SDS(B) consists of very thick, heavy metal part and another thinner part, which looks like it is been partially peeled off the main body. The items are heavily corroded with dark discoloration on one side." Seen here from three angles (not three pieces, as I had once thought). It's not as clear if this plays in - the ballast seems to have broken on a clean line, but that's another issue. The small piece of metal peeled back might did the same, but I'm not sure what that originally was. It seemed worth including.

12SDS: received 17/7.
The "curved rail" or "partly straightened ring" has on one side, as the FFM describes it "an attached layer of metal, which is approximately 5 mm thick," meaning outer skin. This - perhaps being small parts of 2 rectangular tiles - is shown below marked in green (the larger one extends past the edge and was bent over). There's also a thin rib of metal down its length where other 5mm thick rectangles of the stuff had torn free from either side, on edges just that straight. Note this image just show the thickness of the plates, not their span over the bomb's surface. And note this curved section seems to be the original shape - less distorted, it retains broken bolts and these outer skin remnants. The straightened part seemingly lost all that in its greater distortion.

= CW Weapon?
To me that makes the issue pretty clear. Chemical weapon munitions are often designed to perforate evenly under low pressure, so the chemicals can be released with a minimal opening charge - some blast is needed to expel and spread out the payload, but too much of a blast would destroy most agents.

I'm pretty sure I read about that somewhere, but I can't relocate where at the moment. And I've seen it.  Even the improvised "Volcano" rockets used in 2013's Ghouta attack, for example, had a huge, undivided, bulk-fill payload tank made of long panels the just peel away upon impact (best example: see entry for Daraya, 1-4-2013 here or cropped at right - I later learned the scene is even earlier, Dec. 26, 2012). The apparent vapor here could be simple steam from residual impact heat in the winter cold, or might be more relevant, I'm not sure.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2017/11/black-sarin.html

In other cases (Adra, Ghouta), we see tankless tubes and crumpled slats laying loose, telling the same story. Here following Ghouta 21-8-13 we see some crumpled at the feet of a UN-OPCW inspection team member collecting samples that would test positive. These rockets aere fired fom nearby rebel-held territory, where Syrian troops had been attacked with sarin just three days after the Ghouta attack.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/02/mapping-sarin-related-activity-in-jobar.html

Add 3-19: we should note this rocket was apparently not designed AS a chemical weapon; the less controversial alleged uses of them by Syrian military and allied forces is for conventional high explosives or fuel-air weapons. The latter has a similar principle to CW dispersal, using a lightly ejected cloud of fuel
vapor that's then ignited. I'm still no expert here, but I'd say the slat design goes with that idea that could be useful to deliver sarin. Also note the following is just my limited reading, poorly put as it was ("would" instead of "could" etc.)

In the case of the supposed M4000 sarin bomb, the design, apparently, is to break into rectangles like the ones seen, set at nice rounded 10mm intervals, with 180-190-200 being common plate lengths, 80, 120, 140 being other dimensions, based on where the plate seams came relative to bomb features, like fill port caps. This would, in my limited but decent understanding, make the weapon used a chemical munition, if not the M4000 itself.

And of course it's still likely these fragments were planted, perhaps after being recovered from another use with conventional explosives some time ago This would explain the small size, small number, and melted-twisted nature of the recovered fragments, besides their apparent advanced age-related corrosion, far better than the accepted narrative does.