MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”

[Will Wiley]

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

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.

 

[Jayjay]

No, what's frustrating is someone assuming they know the thoughts and motivations of their interlocutor, instead of taking the time to find out through conversation. Someone that seems to not only think, but want to think that all Americans are Trump excusing warmongers.

It's very obvious that most Americans don't want war. But there is no evidence anywhere that supports Trumps case that Assad was behind the chemicals as opposed to Islamic radicals trying to frame Assad.

France claims to have some evidence. I'm interested to hear what they have to say.

 

[tupac chopra]

It's very obvious that most Americans don't want war. But there is no evidence anywhere that supports Trumps case that Assad was behind the chemicals as opposed to Islamic radicals trying to frame Assad.

France claims to have some evidence. I'm interested to hear what they have to say.

They could have worded it better. It sounds like they have decided who did it before they finished the investigation.

"There is an investigation underway (by) the French intelligence services and military intelligence ... it's a question of days and we will provide proof that the regime carried out these strikes," Ayrault told LCP television.

It's a bit strange. The USA points to open source photos as evidence, but supplies nothing more although it hints it has intercepts.
France must have some powerful evidence if they have already made a conclusion based on it.

 

[SimpleDon]

MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”



Addendum to the report


Assessment of the White House Report

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

I stand by ready to supply the country with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What i can say for sure herein is that what the country is being told by the White House cannot be true.

For me, I find this explanation below more convincing than that of the rocket scientist. McGovern is ex-CIA with extensive contacts still in not only the CIA but also in the US military in Syria itself. He said that the consensus of the CIA is that a conventional attack from the air with HE bombs hit a rebel weapons store that included a quantity of homemade chemical weapons, not sarin gas, and that the conventional bombs released the gas that killed the people. That the White House was informed of this before the cruise missile attack and that they choose to ignore the CIA's opinion and went ahead with the attack.

He says much the same thing about the gas attack in 2013, which is why Obama didn't attack Syria at the time, although Obama continued to use the supposed gas attack as an excuse for ousting Assad. In other words, like Trump, Obama lied about the chemical weapons attack, he just didn't use it as a justification for lobbing 90 million dollars of missiles in the vague vicinity of a Syrian Air Force base, as Trump did.

[YOUTUBE]t_0FbwlAeiw[/YOUTUBE]​

I don't know how reliable this person is, but his explanation rings truer than either the rocket scientist's or the White House's. He was in the CIA and was high enough in it that he was entrusted to chair the National Intelligence Estimates and to give the daily intelligence briefings to President H.W Bush until McGovern retired in 1990. He has turned to political activism since then including supporting Edward Snowden and who once served symbolic "war crimes indictments" on the Bush (W.) White House from a "people's tribunal." All according to Wikipedia,  Ray McGovern.

 

[Deepak]

MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”



Addendum to the report


Assessment of the White House Report

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

For me, I find this explanation below more convincing than that of the rocket scientist. McGovern is ex-CIA with extensive contacts still in not only the CIA but also in the US military in Syria itself. He said that the consensus of the CIA is that a conventional attack from the air with HE bombs hit a rebel weapons store that included a quantity of homemade chemical weapons, not sarin gas, and that the conventional bombs released the gas that killed the people. That the White House was informed of this before the cruise missile attack and that they choose to ignore the CIA's opinion and went ahead with the attack.

He says much the same thing about the gas attack in 2013, which is why Obama didn't attack Syria at the time, although Obama continued to use the supposed gas attack as an excuse for ousting Assad. In other words, like Trump, Obama lied about the chemical weapons attack, he just didn't use it as a justification for lobbing 90 million dollars of missiles in the vague vicinity of a Syrian Air Force base, as Trump did.

[YOUTUBE]t_0FbwlAeiw[/YOUTUBE]​

I don't know how reliable this person is, but his explanation rings truer than either the rocket scientist's or the White House's. He was in the CIA and was high enough in it that he was entrusted to chair the National Intelligence Estimates and to give the daily intelligence briefings to President H.W Bush until McGovern retired in 1990. He has turned to political activism since then including supporting Edward Snowden and who once served symbolic "war crimes indictments" on the Bush (W.) White House from a "people's tribunal." All according to Wikipedia,  Ray McGovern.

This is pretty much the same explanation given by official Russian sources, but I'm highly skeptical of it based on the evidence released so far. Not least of which is the scale of people affected by the sarin. One would expect that an explosion would destroy most of the material were it pre-mixed, considering the chemical instability of the substance, and if it were stored as binary precursors the chances are even slimmer that both chemicals weren't destroyed, mixed in sufficient quantity, and were released in sufficient quantity after an explosion to kill nearly a hundred people.

The UN has also documented multiple uses of chlorine gas by pro-government forces including the Ghouta region. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/IndependentInternationalCommission.aspx

To put the cherry on top, Russia claims the site was trafficking chemical weapons into Iraq - something which they neither provided evidence for nor intimated prior to this post hoc ratofficial assessment.

 

[fromderinside]

Now I know why I like British, Danish, Swedish, German, detective series more than American ones, excepting CSI. They provide provide human, political, physical, and emotional context to their stories while American successful stories push either fear or in-house team feel good bullshit. There are almost never two mostly truthful views of anything.

From Wiki:

Aerodynamic dissemination[edit]

Aerodynamic dissemination is the non-explosive delivery of a chemical agent from an aircraft, allowing aerodynamic stress to disseminate the agent. This technique is the most recent major development in chemical agent dissemination, originating in the mid-1960s.
This technique eliminates many of the limitations of thermal dissemination by eliminating the flashing effect and theoretically allowing precise control of particle size. In actuality, the altitude of dissemination, wind direction and velocity, and the direction and velocity of the aircraft greatly influence particle size. There are other drawbacks as well; ideal deployment requires precise knowledge of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics, and because the agent must usually be dispersed within the boundary layer (less than 200–300 ft above the ground), it puts pilots at risk.
Significant research is still being applied toward this technique. For example, by modifying the properties of the liquid, its breakup when subjected to aerodynamic stress can be controlled and an idealized particle distribution achieved, even at supersonic speed. Additionally, advances in fluid dynamics, computer modeling, and weather forecasting allow an ideal direction, speed, and altitude to be calculated, such that warfare agent of a predetermined particle size can predictably and reliably hit a target.

RE: chemical bombs and loss of agent by incineration. Yes much of the agent may be chemically neutered by the explosive agents in the bomb. Still there is quite an effect remaining in the wide dissemination of agent by explosion.

Modern delivery systems employ force of fall and delivery (rockets, etc) to gain wide dispersion without explosive incineration effects.

So, its no explosion does not destroy all agent. Bomb containers designed to break apart on contact can disperse liquid and gas agents a fair distance.

Now that we aren't all talking past each other on talking points maybe we can come to the conclusion that the Syrians actually did bomb their countrymen again.

There is a possibility that those fighting in the area did have Saran that way hit by Syrian bombs. A real possibility until you realize the high carrying costs of maintaining such cashes by rebels who are being dislodged every day from previously held positions.

The most reasonable explanation is that Saran was the gas, that Saran was deployed by Syria which has fairly low fixed storage risks, and that Syria saw an opportunity to maximize gains given Trump's announced policy.

The risks carried by nomadic, or, without fixed center, rebels had the gas is astonishingly remote.

Finally many different players report from differing perspectives the chemicals, the sources, and the purposes for which they were used. While the Soviet/Syrian position is one of denial and speculation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Professor Emeritus

When an old scientist says something is impossible they're almost always wrong.

It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong; no one has provided the burden of proof that the Syrians were responsible in the first place.

 

[Elixir]

Professor Emeritus

When an old scientist says something is impossible they're almost always wrong.

It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong; no one has provided ME the burden of proof that the Syrians were responsible in the first place.

FIFY.
Again.
Slow learner, or what?

 

[whichphilosophy]

It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong; no one has provided ME the burden of proof that the Syrians were responsible in the first place.

FIFY.
Again.
Slow learner, or what?

No one has shown anyone the burden of proof to anyone, including the Senate and Congress, but it was okay to bomb Syria anyway.

 

[Will Wiley]

MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”



Addendum to the report


Assessment of the White House Report

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

For me, I find this explanation below more convincing than that of the rocket scientist. McGovern is ex-CIA with extensive contacts still in not only the CIA but also in the US military in Syria itself. He said that the consensus of the CIA is that a conventional attack from the air with HE bombs hit a rebel weapons store that included a quantity of homemade chemical weapons, not sarin gas, and that the conventional bombs released the gas that killed the people.

Where did he say that?
What the VIPS report said was this

2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.

I don't know how reliable this person is, but his explanation rings truer than either the rocket scientist's or the White House's.

All the rocket scientist said was the the White House explanation was a lie.

McGoverns contacts can be right and the rocket scientist can be right. You appear to think they are competing theories. ???

 

[Will Wiley]

It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong; no one has provided ME the burden of proof that the Syrians were responsible in the first place.

FIFY.
Again.
Slow learner, or what?

Trump is lying. Why defend him?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FIFY.
Again.
Slow learner, or what?

Trump is lying. Why defend him?

Putin is lying. Why defend him?

 

[blastula]

MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”



Addendum to the report


Assessment of the White House Report

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

For me, I find this explanation below more convincing than that of the rocket scientist. McGovern is ex-CIA with extensive contacts still in not only the CIA but also in the US military in Syria itself. He said that the consensus of the CIA is that a conventional attack from the air with HE bombs hit a rebel weapons store that included a quantity of homemade chemical weapons, not sarin gas, and that the conventional bombs released the gas that killed the people. That the White House was informed of this before the cruise missile attack and that they choose to ignore the CIA's opinion and went ahead with the attack.

He says much the same thing about the gas attack in 2013, which is why Obama didn't attack Syria at the time, although Obama continued to use the supposed gas attack as an excuse for ousting Assad. In other words, like Trump, Obama lied about the chemical weapons attack, he just didn't use it as a justification for lobbing 90 million dollars of missiles in the vague vicinity of a Syrian Air Force base, as Trump did.

[YOUTUBE]t_0FbwlAeiw[/YOUTUBE]​

I don't know how reliable this person is, but his explanation rings truer than either the rocket scientist's or the White House's. He was in the CIA and was high enough in it that he was entrusted to chair the National Intelligence Estimates and to give the daily intelligence briefings to President H.W Bush until McGovern retired in 1990. He has turned to political activism since then including supporting Edward Snowden and who once served symbolic "war crimes indictments" on the Bush (W.) White House from a "people's tribunal." All according to Wikipedia,  Ray McGovern.

McGovern is the crackpot that conspiracy theorists of all stripes turn to when they want an "ex-CIA" source in their story.

 

[Will Wiley]

Ray McGovern explains what actually happened.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7U2Sc8DwU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[braces_for_impact]

OPCW Director-General Shares Incontrovertible Laboratory Results Concluding Exposure to Sarin

The bio-medical samples collected from three victims during their autopsy were analysed at two OPCW designated laboratories. The results of the analysis indicate that the victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. Bio-medical samples from seven individuals undergoing treatment at hospitals were also analysed in two other OPCW designated laboratories. Similarly, the results of these analyses indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.

Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly: “The results of these analyses from four OPCW designated laboratories indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. While further details of the laboratory analyses will follow, the analytical results already obtained are incontrovertible.”

The FFM is still anticipated to complete a first report of its findings to be submitted to States Parties of the Chemical Weapons Convention within two weeks and the Director-General will make the report available to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism.

 

[Will Wiley]

McGovern is the crackpot that conspiracy theorists of all stripes turn to when they want an "ex-CIA" source in their story.

Some people will follow Trump no mater what happens.
Sadly your loyalty to Trump is misplaced.

With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing

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 by the U.S. intelligence community of commercial video data from the site. 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

 

[Will Wiley]

OPCW Director-General Shares Incontrovertible Laboratory Results Concluding Exposure to Sarin

Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly: “The results of these analyses from four OPCW designated laboratories indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. While further details of the laboratory analyses will follow, the analytical results already obtained are incontrovertible.”

The FFM is still anticipated to complete a first report of its findings to be submitted to States Parties of the Chemical Weapons Convention within two weeks and the Director-General will make the report available to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism.

So, it may not have been sarin but rather a sarin like substance?

Some of those at the scene complained of an odour apparently but sarin is odourless.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7waFEzDfS0M&feature=youtu.be[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OPCW Director-General Shares Incontrovertible Laboratory Results Concluding Exposure to Sarin

The FFM is still anticipated to complete a first report of its findings to be submitted to States Parties of the Chemical Weapons Convention within two weeks and the Director-General will make the report available to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism.

So, it may not have been sarin but rather a sarin like substance?

Some of those at the scene complained of an odour apparently but sarin is odourless.

Or maybe Assad's manufacturing isn't up to producing a high purity product.

 

[barbos]

For me, I find this explanation below more convincing than that of the rocket scientist. McGovern is ex-CIA with extensive contacts still in not only the CIA but also in the US military in Syria itself. He said that the consensus of the CIA is that a conventional attack from the air with HE bombs hit a rebel weapons store that included a quantity of homemade chemical weapons, not sarin gas, and that the conventional bombs released the gas that killed the people. That the White House was informed of this before the cruise missile attack and that they choose to ignore the CIA's opinion and went ahead with the attack.

He says much the same thing about the gas attack in 2013, which is why Obama didn't attack Syria at the time, although Obama continued to use the supposed gas attack as an excuse for ousting Assad. In other words, like Trump, Obama lied about the chemical weapons attack, he just didn't use it as a justification for lobbing 90 million dollars of missiles in the vague vicinity of a Syrian Air Force base, as Trump did.

[YOUTUBE]t_0FbwlAeiw[/YOUTUBE]​

I don't know how reliable this person is, but his explanation rings truer than either the rocket scientist's or the White House's. He was in the CIA and was high enough in it that he was entrusted to chair the National Intelligence Estimates and to give the daily intelligence briefings to President H.W Bush until McGovern retired in 1990. He has turned to political activism since then including supporting Edward Snowden and who once served symbolic "war crimes indictments" on the Bush (W.) White House from a "people's tribunal." All according to Wikipedia,  Ray McGovern.

McGovern is the crackpot that conspiracy theorists of all stripes turn to when they want an "ex-CIA" source in their story.

Well, some crackpot conspiracy theorists were saying US government (NSA,CIA, etc) were spying on American public. And guess what, these crackpots were not wrong.

 

[barbos]

OPCW Director-General Shares Incontrovertible Laboratory Results Concluding Exposure to Sarin

The FFM is still anticipated to complete a first report of its findings to be submitted to States Parties of the Chemical Weapons Convention within two weeks and the Director-General will make the report available to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism.

So, it may not have been sarin but rather a sarin like substance?

Some of those at the scene complained of an odour apparently but sarin is odourless.

Or maybe Assad's manufacturing isn't up to producing a high purity product.

Here is a problem with your position. US seems to have iron clad evidence that Assad is responsible, communication intercepts, satellite pictures, etc. This is all great but makes you wonder, if it is not possible for Assad to do anything without US knowing it then why US ignored few previous gas attacks? that is between 2013 attack and this one.