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

[blastula]

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.

What loyalty? The man can go die in a fire for all I think of him. You have amnesia about how you promoted him during the election?

That I put no credence in your sources doesn't prove I support Trump. It's only proves I know how to evaluate information.

As to your propaganda campaign over the sarin attack, I could more justifiably ask why you continue to support Assad and Putin.

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

You use guys like Postol like someone who is doctor shopping. You'r a source shopper. You post sources who support your bias no matter how sketchy or uncorroborated they are.

Remember this?

One can take into account that the NYPD have already looked at emails from the laptop.
Reports are they found plenty before handing the laptop to the FBI

Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

Maybe Putin put the emails on Wieners laptop?

That's back when you loved Trump.

 

[scombrid]

Rocket scientist emeritus looks at some pictures and makes a declarative statement.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mystery-missile-launch-seen-off-calif-coast/

Airplane contrail lit by the setting sun caught the attention of the public and made the news. News finds an "expert" to analyze the images for them. He is a former Deputy Secretary of Defense. He prattles on about how it could have been an ICBM test, never once stopping to recognize the obvious, that it wasn't a rocket launch at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

This is the only time we responded in a very public way. That doesn't mean we didn't do something behind the scenes in the past. It also might be that we chose not to reveal our intel in the past. His Flatulence isn't going to be good a keeping quiet to avoid showing what we know.

 

[barbos]

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.

This is the only time we responded in a very public way. That doesn't mean we didn't do something behind the scenes in the past. It also might be that we chose not to reveal our intel in the past. His Flatulence isn't going to be good a keeping quiet to avoid showing what we know.

I think behind the scene US said "OK, you (Assad) can gas them (terrorists) but do that very carefully" His Flatulence has nothing to do with anything here. US intelligence is most likely knows every fart Assad makes and more importantly he knows it.

 

[Deepak]

So that's why Russia is so keen to veto UN investigations in Syria, because US spooks sanctioned it.

 

[barbos]

So that's why Russia is so keen to veto UN investigations in Syria, because US spooks sanctioned it.

I don't think anyone wants investigation. Resolution put a blame on Assad already, that's why Russia rejected it. Everybody is happy, even Trump.

 

[Deepak]

Got a citation for that?

 

[barbos]

Got a citation for that?

Citation for what exactly?

 

[whichphilosophy]

So that's why Russia is so keen to veto UN investigations in Syria, because US spooks sanctioned it.

Russia has in many reports not actually objected to an investigation but

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ld-trump-sergey-lavrov-mohammad-a7676856.html

Russia and Iran have issued a joint call for an “unbiased investigation” into the chemical weapons incident which provoked Donald Trump to launch missiles at an airbase in Syria.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif agreed to make the call on Monday while denouncing the US attack on the Syrian airbase as “an act of aggression against a sovereign nation”.

It comes as the UK and US prepare to lobby allies at the G7 in Italy for a tough statement against the Assad regime in Syria and Russia’s backing for it.

The problem is the US already made up its mind and threw 59 rockets at Syria before any investigation could be convened.
There should be an international team from at least all the major countries.

- - - Updated - - -

So that's why Russia is so keen to veto UN investigations in Syria, because US spooks sanctioned it.

I don't think anyone wants investigation. Resolution put a blame on Assad already, that's why Russia rejected it. Everybody is happy, even Trump.

Trumps advisers gave him a happy ending.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Got a citation for that?

Which definition?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/citation

1. A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work.
2. Law A reference to a previous case, used as guidance in the trying of comparable cases or in support of an argument.
3. A mention of a praiseworthy act in an official report, especially that of a member of the armed forces in wartime.
3. A note accompanying an award, describing the reasons for it.
4. North American A summons to appear in court.

 

[braces_for_impact]

So am I correct in observing in this thread that evidence was requested for the gas attack, and once given was ignored, and now the goalposts have been moved to a few countries that have requested a "non-biased" investigation?

 

[whichphilosophy]

So am I correct in observing in this thread that evidence was requested for the gas attack, and once given was ignored, and now the goalposts have been moved to a few countries that have requested a "non-biased" investigation?

Russia and Iran certainly requested an international unbiased investigation. No investigation has convened so far, but the US got to fire off 59 missiles.

 

[Jayjay]

So am I correct in observing in this thread that evidence was requested for the gas attack, and once given was ignored, and now the goalposts have been moved to a few countries that have requested a "non-biased" investigation?

Russia and Iran certainly requested an international unbiased investigation. No investigation has convened so far, but the US got to fire off 59 missiles.

OPCW is investigating it already. All that the UN resolution that Russia shot down would have done was to compel Assad and other parties in Syria to help it do its work better.

 

[fromderinside]

To the poster before Jayjay: If you want to be believed be accurate. US launched 60 rockets, one of which failed with the result that 59 reached their targets.

To the argument that Sarin could have been produced and stored by rebels who tend to be mobile and not highly trained in either production, storage, or container manufacture and use, the following should be enough for most to be convinced that it was a state player who used the stuff.

This bit is mainly for you J842P

Along with nerve agents such as tabun and VX, sarin can have a short shelf life. Therefore, it is usually stored as two separate precursors that produce sarin when combined.^[37] Sarin's shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine. In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions.

So how does this no UN investigation but have an unbiased investigation thing work for Russia and Iran? Oh wait. Jayjay just wrote there is an unbiased investigation going on anyway, just not the unbiased one Russia wanted.

Too many pebbles are scattered about for Russia to pick up. Better they just shut up and get on kissing Assad's arse to keep bases in Syria. The way wheels are spinning it's possible Russia will lose that Syrian base when Assad has to skedaddle. Wasn't the case before the the Saran event. It's even strengthened EU and NATO case against Russia on Crimea and E. Ukraine.

Oh, by the way, Oil is down to $49 again. Not helping Russia keep its population from becoming restless.

A little nibble here and a little nibble there soon becomes a Russian crash.

Keep it up with those young Russian action death daring selfies. Soon it will be the only way Russia gets income.

 

[J842P]

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

Why do you post "ex-CIA" in scare-quotes? Do you mean to imply he was never part of the CIA? That seems dubious. Apparently, he is a *decorated* member of the intelligence community. I'd never heard of the guy, but a quick perusal of his track record includes:

1) Heavily criticizing the intelligence backing the lead-up to the Iraq war. Seems like he's been vindicated there
2) Heavily criticizing the use of torture. Again, seems like he's been vindicated there.

The real question is, why do you claim he is a crackpot? He seems like he has been entirely sensible to me. It seems to me your only basis is that he disagrees with *you*.

 

[blastula]

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

Why do you post "ex-CIA" in scare-quotes? Do you mean to imply he was never part of the CIA? That seems dubious. Apparently, he is a *decorated* member of the intelligence community.

I meant it as a quote in a story, not that he's fake. Big deal anyway.

I'd never heard of the guy, but a quick perusal of his track record includes:

1) Heavily criticizing the intelligence backing the lead-up to the Iraq war. Seems like he's been vindicated there
2) Heavily criticizing the use of torture. Again, seems like he's been vindicated there.

The real question is, why do you claim he is a crackpot? He seems like he has been entirely sensible to me. It seems to me your only basis is that he disagrees with *you*.

You're right, I shouldn't have called him a crackpot, only that he's used by crackpots. He's more a cranky old man than crackpot. His main thing is being antiwar, which I do like about him, I've seen him speak before. But he doesn't have any special inside knowledge about anything, he doesn't know anymore than what's public, well he does claim to have his sources, but that's not worth much as info. He may have good general geopolitical knowledge, but he still has his own bias about it all. He just a guy with strong opinions and speculations more than facts.

Other ex-CIA guys like Larry Johnson are actual crackpots.

 

[Will Wiley]

To the poster before Jayjay: If you want to be believed be accurate. US launched 60 rockets, one of which failed with the result that 59 reached their targets.

.

There is no evidence that 59 reached their targets, and rumours that 36 went missing. ( I linked to a video discussing this, but it's around the web) Possibly defected by the Russians.
The missiles didn't seem to work very well, as the Syrians soon had the airstrip up and running.
Just because Trump said it was a success doesn't mean it was.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right, I shouldn't have called him a crackpot, only that he's used by crackpots. He's more a cranky old man than crackpot. His main thing is being antiwar, which I do like about him, I've seen him speak before. But he doesn't have any special inside knowledge about anything, he doesn't know anymore than what's public, .

You wouldn't know

 

[Will Wiley]

So am I correct in observing in this thread that evidence was requested for the gas attack, and once given was ignored, and now the goalposts have been moved to a few countries that have requested a "non-biased" investigation?

No this is your strawman.
No one denied there was some kind of chemical attack. This thread points out that Trump lied about it. The WHR report was amateurish and wrong.

 

[blastula]

So am I correct in observing in this thread that evidence was requested for the gas attack, and once given was ignored, and now the goalposts have been moved to a few countries that have requested a "non-biased" investigation?

No this is your strawman.
No one denied there was some kind of chemical attack. This thread points out that Trump lied about it. The WHR report was amateurish and wrong.

You don't know the report was wrong. It wasn't even a report per se. It was just a background briefing.

 

[J842P]

Why do you post "ex-CIA" in scare-quotes? Do you mean to imply he was never part of the CIA? That seems dubious. Apparently, he is a *decorated* member of the intelligence community.

I meant it as a quote in a story, not that he's fake. Big deal anyway.

I'd never heard of the guy, but a quick perusal of his track record includes:

1) Heavily criticizing the intelligence backing the lead-up to the Iraq war. Seems like he's been vindicated there
2) Heavily criticizing the use of torture. Again, seems like he's been vindicated there.

The real question is, why do you claim he is a crackpot? He seems like he has been entirely sensible to me. It seems to me your only basis is that he disagrees with *you*.

You're right, I shouldn't have called him a crackpot, only that he's used by crackpots. He's more a cranky old man than crackpot. His main thing is being antiwar, which I do like about him, I've seen him speak before. But he doesn't have any special inside knowledge about anything, he doesn't know anymore than what's public, well he does claim to have his sources, but that's not worth much as info. He may have good general geopolitical knowledge, but he still has his own bias about it all. He just a guy with strong opinions and speculations more than facts.

Other ex-CIA guys like Larry Johnson are actual crackpots.

So, you think someone who was a CIA analyst for almost 4 decades doesn't have any special knowledge about *anything*? Like, the types of bullshit the intelligence community regularly engages in, for example?