Syria Chemical Attack 2017

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"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump’s-far-right-supporters-turn-on-him-over-syria-strike/ar-BBzvH2t

Paul Joseph Watson, an editor at the conspiracy theorist site Infowars, said on Twitter that Trump “was just another deep state/neocon puppet.” He added, “I’m officially OFF the Trump train.”

Richard Spencer, a far-right activist and white nationalist who coined the term “alt-right,” said he condemned the attack and hinted at supporting another presidential candidate in 2020: Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a Democrat. Ms. Gabbard met with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in January and on Thursday criticized the missile strike as shortsighted and reckless. For some on the far right, particularly those who are pro-Russia, Mr. Trump’s strike crossed a line.
...
Some of those supporters claimed, without evidence, that the chemical weapons attack was a hoax carried out by the “deep state” — what they believe to be a nebulous network of military officials working behind the scenes — to drag the United States into war. Scott Adams, the cartoonist who created Dilbert, wrote on his website on Thursday before the missile strike that the chemical weapons attack was a “manufactured event.”
Content from External Source
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:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Paul Joseph Watson, an editor at the conspiracy theorist site Infowars, said on Twitter that Trump “was just another deep state/neocon puppet.” He added, “I’m officially OFF the Trump train.”
Content from External Source
oh, yee ha! I had 4 months in the 'when will Infowars dump Trump' pool. sweet.
 

MikeG

Senior 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 US / NATO military industrial complex wants total global hegemonic power and will stop at nothing in the attempt to achieve it. The latest desired excuse to ramp up US / NATO military aggression in the Middle East has now been conveniently provided, but what really happened? And why? Do Americans even remember the earlier false flag chemical weapons attack that was staged in Syria, just as the UN weapons inspectors arrived in Syria?
Content from External Source
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...ile-global-geoengineering-omnicide-continues/


The Daily Sheeple took a more specific approach, blaming Syrian volunteer civil defense workers, the “White Helmets,” for the attack:
Syrian Civil Defense aka the Syrian White Helmets have long ago been exposed in the alternative media as a war propaganda operation meant to benefit the Western governments attempting to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. They are tied to not just to British and American intelligence, but they openly admit to receiving millions of dollars in funding from the US State Department, UK Foreign Office, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, among many others.
Content from External Source
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/anot...an-sarin-gas-attack-no-gloves-no-masks_042017
 

SR1419

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

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/04/05/khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-evidence-far/

While the international community has condemned the attack, the Syrian and Russian governments both denied direct responsibility for the attack, claiming instead a warehouse storing chemical weapons produced by rebel groups was hit
Content from External Source
 

NobleOne

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.


DAILY MAIL with your site removed the text that accurately describes the plan of the United States to carry out a chemical attack that would kindle Assad

On the main website of the British newspaper Daily Mail vanished article published on 29 January 2013, published under the title "The US supported the implementation plan of chemical attacks in Syria which will be charged with the Assad regime"

The author of this text was Louise Boyle and openly wrote that the "chemical attack" should be an excuse to increase the operations of the American coalition in Syria.
....
In these letters, they said that the White House authorized the execution of chemical attacks in Syria in which it would be possible to accuse the Syrian leader Bashar Assad.
Content from External Source
https://www.novi-svjetski-poredak.c...ede-kemijski-napad-koji-ce-podmetnuti-assadu/

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

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129...chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
from their website an article predicting this chemical attack
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.

By LOUISE BOYLE

PUBLISHED: 14:16 EST, 29 January 2013 | UPDATED: 18:17 EST, 29 January 2013

Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.
Content from External Source
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 :)

Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers agreed the six-figure libel settlement after accepting that the emails were fabricated and that the allegation of a chemical weapons plot was untrue.

Martin Wood, for Associated Newspapers, said in a statement before the judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies: "My lady, on behalf of the defendant, I confirm that the defendant offers its sincere apologies to the claimants for the damage and distress caused by the publication of these false allegations, which had appeared on US websites.

"The defendant acknowledges that the emails in question were completely fabricated and that there is no question of any of the claimants being involved – or even considering becoming involved – in the heinous actions to which the article referred. The defendant is pleased to set the record straight."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jun/26/daily-mail-syrian-chemical-weapons-libel
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
Paul Joseph Watson, an editor at the conspiracy theorist site Infowars, said on Twitter that Trump “was just another deep state/neocon puppet.” He added, “I’m officially OFF the Trump train.”
Content from External Source
oh, yee ha! I had 4 months in the 'when will Infowars dump Trump' pool. sweet.
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.
 

appletini

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

https://www.scribd.com/document/344...k-in-Khan-Shaykhun-on-April-4-2017#from_embed
I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017.

In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4.

This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment, is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.

Content from External Source
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:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Has anyone answered or tried to debunk Theodore Postols arguments? They can be found here:
Some background and links to documents is helpful to readers, so I will provide them here. Link to the government 4 page report:

WASHINGTON — The White House accused Russia on Tuesday of engaging in a cover-up of the Syrian government’s role in a chemical weapons attack last week, saying that United States intelligence had confirmed that the Assad regime used sarin gas on its own people.

A four-page report drawn up by the National Security Council contains declassified United States intelligence on the attack and a rebuttal of Moscow’s claim that insurgents unleashed the gas to frame the Syrian government. Instead, the White House asserted that Damascus and Moscow had released “false narratives” to mislead the world
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/...-syria-chemical-weapons-white-house.html?_r=0
Content from External Source
and PDF of Postol's 'assessment' attached.
 

Attachments

  • Postol assessment of report.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 735

qed

Senior Member
I have isolated the key argument.

Figure 2 shows a high quality photograph of the crater identified in the White House report as the source of the sarin attack. Assuming that there was no tampering of evidence at the crater, one can see what the White House is claiming as a dispenser of the nerve agent.

The dispenser looks like a 122 mm pipe like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets.

As shown in the close-up of the pipe in the crater in Figure 3, the pipe looks like it was originally sealed at the front end and the back end. Also of note is that the pipe is flattened into the crater, and also has a fractured seam that was created by the brittle failure of the metal skin when the pipe was suddenly crushed inward from above.

Figure 4 shows the possible configuration of an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe. A good guess of how this dispersal mechanism worked (again, assuming that the crater and carcass were not staged, as assumed in the White House report) was that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated.

The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet. It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the

pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end. This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.

If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane.

Figure 8 shows the improvised sarin dispenser along with a typical 122 mm artillery rocket and the modified artillery rocket used in the sarin attack of August 21, 2013 in Damascus.

Content from External Source
 

qed

Senior Member

Russia vetoes UN draft resolution on Syria gas attack probe

UNITED NATIONS, United States: Russia on Wednesday vetoed a UN draft resolution demanding the Syrian government cooperate with an investigation of a suspected chemical attack that the West blames on President Bashar al-Assad´s forces.


It was the eighth time that Russia has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to block action directed at its ally in Damascus.

Britain, France and the United States put forward the measure in response to the suspected sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhun on April 4 that left 87 dead, including 31 children.

China, another veto-holding power at the council, abstained in the vote, as did Kazakhstan and Ethiopia.

Bolivia voted against the measure and 10 other council members supported it.
Content from External Source
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/198156-Russia-vetoes-UN-draft-resolution-on-Syria-gas-attack-probe
 

qed

Senior 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.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
I have isolated the key argument.

Figure 2 shows a high quality photograph of the crater identified in the White House report as the source of the sarin attack. Assuming that there was no tampering of evidence at the crater, one can see what the White House is claiming as a dispenser of the nerve agent.

The dispenser looks like a 122 mm pipe like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets.

As shown in the close-up of the pipe in the crater in Figure 3, the pipe looks like it was originally sealed at the front end and the back end. Also of note is that the pipe is flattened into the crater, and also has a fractured seam that was created by the brittle failure of the metal skin when the pipe was suddenly crushed inward from above.

Figure 4 shows the possible configuration of an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe. A good guess of how this dispersal mechanism worked (again, assuming that the crater and carcass were not staged, as assumed in the White House report) was that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated.

The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet. It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the

pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end. This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.

If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane.

Figure 8 shows the improvised sarin dispenser along with a typical 122 mm artillery rocket and the modified artillery rocket used in the sarin attack of August 21, 2013 in Damascus.

Content from External Source

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.

&NCS_modified=20130819191902&MaxW=640&imageVersion=default&AR-307149963.jpg

http://www.thenational.ae/news/worl...-in-iraq-rocket-attacks-it-says-leads-to-iran

A good point of reference on this story is Gregory Koblenz, “Syria’s Chemical Weapons Kill Chain,” Foreign Policy (7 April 2017).
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/07/syrias-chemical-weapons-kill-chain-assad-sarin/
 
Postol has further arguments debunking the Trump Whitehouse story.

THE NERVE AGENT ATTACK THAT DID NOT OCCUR:
ANALYSIS OF THE TIMES AND LOCATIONS OF CRITICAL EVENTS IN THE ALLEGED NERVE AGENT ATTACK AT 7 AM ON APRIL 4, 2017 IN KHAN SHEIKHOUN, SYRIA

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67102.html

This analysis contains a detailed description of the times and locations of critical events in the alleged nerve agent attack of April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria – assuming that the White House Intelligence Report (WHR) issued on April 11, 2017 correctly identified the alleged sarin release site.

Analysis using weather data from the time of the attack shows that a small hamlet about 300 m to the east southeast of the crater could be the only location affected by the alleged nerve agent release. The hamlet is separated from the alleged release site (a crater) by an open field. The winds at the time of the release would have initially taken the sarin across the open field. Beyond the hamlet there is a substantial amount of open space and the sarin cloud would have had to travel long additional distance for it to have dissipated before reaching any other population center.

Video taken on April 4 shows that the location where the victims were supposedly being treated from sarin exposure is incompatible with the only open space in the hamlet that could have been used for mass treatment of victims. This indicates that the video scenes where mass casualties (dead and dying) were laid on the ground randomly was not at the hamlet. If the location where the bodies were on the ground was instead a site where the injured and dead were taken for processing, then it is hard to understand why bodies were left randomly strewn on the ground and in mud as shown in the videos.

The conclusion of this summary of data is obvious – the nerve agent attack described in the WHR did not occur as claimed. There may well have been mass casualties from some kind of poisoning event, but that event was not the one described by the WHR.
Content from External Source
 
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

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4651439.htm
Did the link you posted contain any evidence relating to the incident?
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
I have isolated the key argument.

Figure 2 shows a high quality photograph of the crater identified in the White House report as the source of the sarin attack. Assuming that there was no tampering of evidence at the crater, one can see what the White House is claiming as a dispenser of the nerve agent.

The dispenser looks like a 122 mm pipe like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets.

As shown in the close-up of the pipe in the crater in Figure 3, the pipe looks like it was originally sealed at the front end and the back end. Also of note is that the pipe is flattened into the crater, and also has a fractured seam that was created by the brittle failure of the metal skin when the pipe was suddenly crushed inward from above.

Figure 4 shows the possible configuration of an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe. A good guess of how this dispersal mechanism worked (again, assuming that the crater and carcass were not staged, as assumed in the White House report) was that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated.

The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet. It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the

pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end. This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.

If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane.

Figure 8 shows the improvised sarin dispenser along with a typical 122 mm artillery rocket and the modified artillery rocket used in the sarin attack of August 21, 2013 in Damascus.

Content from External Source

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.

upload_2017-4-22_8-21-9.png

From Rosoboronexport catalog

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/s-13-t/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket
 

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
 
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.
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
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior 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
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:
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.
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.
My own assessment is that the site was likely tampered with or staged..
Content from External Source
Postol clearly say that the White House Report .....

assumes the crater was not tampered with prior to the photographs
Content from External Source
In the light of this you'll probably agree you jumped the gun a bit
 
Last edited:

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.html?_r=1

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
open source reporting
Content from External Source
, and
videos and other reporting
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
The WHR contains no photographs! So you have no idea whether they are the same ones or not
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
open source video
Content from External Source
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'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-assad-claims-experts-evidence-a7668996.html
syria-chemical-attack5.jpg
copyright Reuters
 
Last edited:
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
open source video
Content from External Source
the CIA (or whoever) looked at. His 'evidence' is just theory at best.
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:

deirdre

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

Ray Von Geezer

Senior 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?

Here are Ted Postols own words at the beginning of his report.
My own assessment is that the site was likely tampered with or staged..
Content from External Source
Postol clearly say that the White House Report .....

assumes the crater was not tampered with prior to the photographs
Content from External Source
In the light of this you'll probably agree you jumped the gun a bit
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:-

Deirdre said:
except Postol was using the wrong photographs, as already pointed out in this thread. Time to move on.
That has not been demonstrated.

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

thanks

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
 
Please say clearly why you still believe Postol wasn't using the later photograph.
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.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Please say clearly how you proved any photo is untampered with.
Are you now diverting into claims of tampered photographs?

Who, other than you, is making that claim?
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.
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.

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.
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?

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.
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
 
Are you now diverting into claims of tampered photographs?

Who, other than you, is making that claim?
.
Of course not, as I have already said, Postol points out that the site was tampered with. The photos of are the site.

But all of this is a distraction as we know which way the wind was blowing and we know what lay in that direction. The evidence doesn't fit.
But feel free to keep harping on that you have "proved" something about the sequence if the photos.
Even if you could do that ...so what? So...what...you need to deal with the meat of Postols case, and that is the layout of the area and the wind direction.
 

Qualiall

Member
Of course not, as I have already said, Postol points out that the site was tampered with. The photos of are the site.

But all of this is a distraction as we know which way the wind was blowing and we know what lay in that direction. The evidence doesn't fit.
But feel free to keep harping on that you have "proved" something about the sequence if the photos.
Even if you could do that ...so what? So...what...you need to deal with the meat of Postols case, and that is the layout of the area and the wind direction.

Russia, Postol, and everyone else agree that a chemical weapon was deployed and killed people. What does your claim about "wind direction" have to do with anything?
 
Russia, Postol, and everyone else agree that a chemical weapon was deployed and killed people. What does your claim about "wind direction" have to do with anything?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67182.html

In my earlier report released on April 18, 2017 I misinterpreted the wind-direction convention which resulted in my estimates of plume directions being exactly 180° off in direction. This document corrects that error and provides very important new analytic results that follow from that error

When the error in wind direction is corrected, the conclusion is that if there was a significant sarin release at the crater as alleged by the White House Intelligence Report issued on April 11, 2017 (WHR), the immediate result would have been significant casualties immediately adjacent to the dispersion crater.

The fact that there were numerous television journalists reporting from the alleged sarin release site and there was absolutely no mention of casualties that would have occurred within tens to hundreds of meters of the alleged release site indicates that the WHR was produced without even a cursory low-level review of commercial video data from the site by the US intelligence community. This overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the WHR identification of the crater as a sarin release site should have been accompanied with an equally solid identification of the area where casualties were caused by the alleged aerosol dispersal. The details of the crater itself unambiguously show that it was not created by the alleged airdropped sarin dispersing munition.

These new details are even more problematic because the WHR cited commercial video as providing information that it used to derive its conclusions that there was a sarin attack from an airdropped munition at this location.

As can be seen by the corrected wind patterns in the labeled photographs on the next page, the predicted direction of the sarin plume would take it immediately into a heavily populated area. The area immediately adjacent to the north northwest of the road is may not be populated, as there was likely heavy damage to those homes facing the road from a bombing attack that occurred earlier at a warehouse to the direct east of the crater (designated on map below). However, houses that were immediately behind those on the road would have been substantially shielded from shock waves that could have caused heavy damage to those structures.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top