1. Qualiall

    Qualiall Member

    Most mainstream and government institutions say that the Assad regime was behind the recent chemical attack.

    There are claims by Russia and Syria that the recent chemical attack was either done by "terrorist groups" or were the result of bombing a facility where "terrorists" were storing such weapons. However, witnesses on the ground say that the facility that got bombed was for grain storage.

    A number of "far right" groups (and "far left" I imagine) in the US are angry at Trump's response--from the usual "Stay out of Syria" mantra--but some are offering up conspiracy theories--including that it was a hoax perpetrated by the "deep state"


    WND has an article (sorry can't link it properly due to work related restrictions on internet usage) that says Ron Paul claims there is zero chance Assad was behind the attack.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    oh, yee ha! I had 4 months in the 'when will Infowars dump Trump' pool. sweet.
    • Like Like x 7
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. MikeG

    MikeG Active Member

    This was also a week when multiple CT websites reported that the gas attack in Syria was a false flag.

    Geoengineeringwatch.org went with a broad brush, accusing the global power structure:


    The Daily Sheeple took a more specific approach, blaming Syrian volunteer civil defense workers, the “White Helmets,” for the attack:

    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Here is Bellingcat's summary of the details of the chemical attack: The comments are almost more informative than the article.


    • Like Like x 3
  5. NobleOne

    NobleOne New Member

    Website from Croatia reports that Daily Mail removed from their website an article predicting this chemical attack. The article also states reasons for this attack.


    However, article is still available on web.archive.org

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2017
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    A British tabloid siting InfoWars as a source....good luck with that.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I edited your post and added text from the article as we have an "English language" policy and a No Click Policy.

    I don't see in the article where it states Daily Mail predicted this attack though. The Daily Mail article in question is from 29 January 2013. And the pulled article doesn't predict anything either.

    according to wayback machine it was removed Jan 31st.

    add: and just because I see this bunk article has been shared by conspiracy sites since it was published :)
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. NobleOne

    NobleOne New Member

    Thanks deirdre and pardon me! It is a very useful policy increasing usability and readability of the site.
  9. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    With Bannon being sidelined and rumors of the rest of the administration trying to push him out,it was going to be now. I'm actually surprised so much of the alt-media turned with him rather than try to break Breitbart and Infowars hold on the venue.
  10. appletini

    appletini New Member

    Has anyone answered or tried to debunk Theodore Postols arguments? They can be found here:


    I haven't had time to look into it in detail yet. My experience tells me Postol is somewhat of a knee-jerk critic of the U.S. (for example criticizing the Patriot-missile system during the Gulf war), but I'm curious if there is any merit to his arguments.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Some background and links to documents is helpful to readers, so I will provide them here. Link to the government 4 page report:

    and PDF of Postol's 'assessment' attached.

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  12. qed

    qed Active Member

  13. qed

    qed Active Member

    I have isolated the key argument.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. qed

    qed Active Member

  15. qed

    qed Active Member

    Another view of the crater.
    The following video has a number of close-ups of the crater.
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. qed

    qed Active Member

    Has the device been run over by the time it appears on Postol's image? If so, "it simply got run over" defeats Postol's main argument.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. MikeG

    MikeG Active Member

    There are a lot of assumptions in his statement, which is irritating.

    Here is a picture of a rocket recovered after a 2011 attack in Iraq. The metal casing is deformed by the impact and explosion.



    A good point of reference on this story is Gregory Koblenz, “Syria’s Chemical Weapons Kill Chain,” Foreign Policy (7 April 2017).
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Graham2001

    Graham2001 Active Member

    Australia's Media Watch program has covered the whole affair and pointed out the intersection between Russia, 'Left Wing Academics' and Alex Jones in pushing an 'Al Qaeda did it' line.

    The link below goes to a transcript of the segment which includes the original video broadcast on the 10th of April 2017

  19. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Postol has further arguments debunking the Trump Whitehouse story.



  20. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Did the link you posted contain any evidence relating to the incident?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    It looks like the remains of the rocket propellant body. Notice that Postol carefully words his assessment to only suggest a "122mm artillery rocket" and stays clear of any suggestion that it could be an air to ground 122mm rocket.

    The US assess that the Syrian aircraft was an Su-22 Fitter. The 122mm unguided rocket type used by the Su-22 is the S-13 series.


    From Rosoboronexport catalog


    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  22. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Postol appears to be basing his analysis, and most of his theory that it was some kind of placed ground explosive, on pictures taken after the scene has been tampered with.

    As can be seen in this picture (and others in the video @qed linked at post #15), the pipe is actually impacted into the ground, and also doesn't seem to be as "flattened" as the later pictures.


    From the pictures Postol uses, it appears an attempt has been made to either remove it, or bend it back into the hole, which has likely caused the flattening and possibly the fracturing. It also dates this picture as having being taken later than the others - note the absence of the disk-shaped object.

    I think that also "debunks" this theory specifically, since the picture doesn't represent the canister's original position or condition, which is his entire evidence. It had one end buried deep enough in the ground that it could be bent, and the other end was sticking up into the air.

    Ray Von
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  23. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Postol says that the WHR cannot be right, and for more reasons than you mention.
    If you read Postol his claim is that the site was tampered with, and you have at least noticed that.

    The WHR needs to show that the site was not tampered with and as you correctly show, it was tampered with.
    So the Trump WHR report is amateurish, at best, and a deliberate piece of fake news at worst
  24. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    No, I don't mean tampered with as in maliciously, a poor choice of word I my part, but you're attaching a motive to that I don't share. The only suspicious purpose I can imagine is a failed attempt to remove the evidence, but equally it could have been an ill equipped attempt at recovery, or even done accidentally as QED suggested.

    Whatever the reason it was moved, the key thing for this claim is that Postol appears to have either missed or ignored that it was. I can't see anything beyond that mistake as evidence for his 'crossed pipes' scenario being likely. Can you?

    Remember Metabunk deals with individual claims, so if you find any of Postol's other theories compelling then probably best to spell them out clearly per the guidelines so they can be considered. Hopefully there'll be something more credible.

    Ray Von
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 5:16 PM
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    That is wrong. In fact Postol criticises the WHR because the WHR assumes that the site was not tampered with!!
    Did you read his report?

    Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

    Here are Ted Postols own words at the beginning of his report.

    Postol clearly say that the White House Report .....

    In the light of this you'll probably agree you jumped the gun a bit
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 7:37 PM
  26. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    except Postol was using the wrong photographs, as already pointed out in this thread. Time to move on.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  27. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    That has not been demonstrated.

    In which post do you think that was demonstrated? Provide a link please.

    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 7:54 PM
  28. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  29. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    None of that shows Ted Postol used the wrong photographs.

    But it matters not because it is impossible to show that Postol used the wrong photographs.
    Postol is reviewing the WHR, and commenting on it.


    The WHR contains no photographs! So we have no idea whether they are the same ones or not. But they likely could be or are.

    The WHR report only refers to
    , and
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 8:46 PM
  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    so we agree that Postol's photographic evidence of 'tampered site' used by the WH' claims are not evidence, since he has no idea which photos
    the CIA (or whoever) looked at. His 'evidence' is just theory at best.

    Does this prove the CIA was using video of the crater taken the day of the attack? no. But it proves Postol was not using the earliest photos in his assessment. and since there are several such photos (pre-pipe falling over) and videos out there, it's kinda a stretch to think the CIA didn't see them.

    ex: heres the pipe from the other side published on April 5th. still 'standing up'.
    copyright Reuters
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 9:34 PM
    • Informative Informative x 3
  31. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 3
  32. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Deidre can you please read the reports rather than creating strawmen? Thanks

    This not that hard. All we have is a bunch of photos and videos posted on the internet. We have no idea if they were planted or how much they were tampered with.
    We have no official assessment from CIA analysts on it either. We have the Trump Whitehouse giving us a suspect story
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 9:46 PM
  33. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I did. Both of em, a few times.
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    BTW, in case you are confused... this is Metabunk. We look at "claims of evidence" here.

    I do agree with his overall argument that the "report" (seems more like a press briefing to me) doesn't prove who did the attack, as the "report" doesn't give us actual evidence other than the Russians admitting the attack.

    But the "tampered site" evidence Postol is trying to use to prove that, is bunk.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  35. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    I think we really need to focus here, because you seem to be ignoring the specific claim addressed and diverting into a myriad of other claims Postol has made. The claim addressed is his "crossed pipes" theory, which he's apparently based on later images which don't represent the intact site.

    Whether Postol commented on possible tampering isn't relevant to that claim itself, beyond perhaps wondering why he made it anyway if he already suspected he was using the wrong images.

    I think it's important to clear this up before moving on, because it looks like you still believe his claim is valid:-

    Earlier image of the scene:-


    Summary of Postol's claim and the image he bases it on:-


    Please say clearly why you still believe Postol wasn't using the later photograph. If you're casting doubt on whether the first photograph was taken earlier, note the crater edge, particularly the overhang of concrete at around 1 o'clock on the crater which is intact in the first photograph and has collapsed into it in the second.

    Please don't divert into whether the site was interfered with, obviously it has been but speculation on motives or who by is just that.

    Ray Von
    • Agree Agree x 2
  36. william wiley

    william wiley Member

    Please say clearly how you proved any photo is untampered with.
    Then if you wish you can also explain how you know which photo is prior.
    It's not for me to accept your unproven assumptions. You need to demonstrate why your assumptions are correct.

    All you have is some photos fed to you from an area controlled by al nusra and similar groups. You need to show why we should accept them on face value.

    As the photos do not fit with what we would expect to see on that day at that time, you can't ask anyone to assume they are untampered evidence.
    All the evidence should fit together. Where the hole is, what direction the wind was blowing, what time it happened, etc etc...
    If these things don't fit together then it looks fake, and it certainly doesn't look like it should according to the Trump White House report.
    After all, this is the whole point of Postols analysis. The pieces don't fit. So your insistence that you know things about the photos, including the sequence, is groundless.
  37. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Are you now diverting into claims of tampered photographs?

    Who, other than you, is making that claim?
    I thought I had, above? I doubt a team of navvies came along and repaired that overhang.

    See also the timing of the tweet Deirdre posted. We have, at least, posting times for both images.

    Please give the reasons why you dispute that point, not just that you do.

    Which is also all Postol has. Why are you holding me up to a higher burden of proof than him?

    Why won't you acknowledge he used a later photograph?

    Individual claims of evidence. You've been here long enough :)

    Let's please clear up the photos before moving onto anything else. You keep disagreeing with Postol having used the wrong photograph but won't give a reason why.

    Ray Von
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2