If this is your first time here, I recommend starting from the conclusion page.
The UN report has been the main source of evidence in this research. Over time I found in it multiple flaws and misrepresentations, which I list here together, for convenience.
The UN report has been the main source of evidence in this research. Over time I found in it multiple flaws and misrepresentations, which I list here together, for convenience.
Wrong Trajectory Calculations
The trajectory analysis from the Zamalka impact site was found to be inaccurate by over 50 degrees.
The trajectory analysis from the alleged Moadamiyah impact site was found to be based on faulty evidence, including a rocket brought from another site, dents that are likely not related to any rocket impact, and unsubstantiated speculation that the the rocket hit an adjacent building without it interfering with its trajectory.
These trajectories were later used in the famous “azimuth intersection” calculation to claim the source of the attack was the Syrian Republican Guard base.
Implying Stabilizers were Found
Data about Impurities and stabilizers was the most important information the world was waiting to get from the team. Yet the report chose to hide these in the appendix, and refer to it in the misleading sentence: "In addition, other relevant chemicals, such as stabilizers are indicated and discussed in Appendix 7”, which was indeed quickly misinterpreted in the press to mean stabilizers were found.
Instead of clearly stating that the sarin contained numerous impurities and no stabilizers, they allowed the media to misinform the public.
Implying High Grade Sarin
It was reported that in a private briefing "Mr Sellstrom confirmed that the quality of the sarin was superior both to that used in the Tokyo subway but also to that used by Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war".
This is a highly misleading statement, exploiting the public’s lack of knowledge of Iraq’s low quality chemical program. Iraq’s sarin purity was discovered to be low and it deteriorated quickly in storage, reaching quality levels as low as the sarin used in Tokyo. The statement also ignores the fact that Syria’s chemical program is consideredfar more advanced than Iraq’s (e.g. having operational binary warheads).
Naturally, this statement was also quickly misinterpreted to mean the sarin was typical of a military source.
Understating Sarin Impurities
While all sarin degradation products were described as such in a footnote, the many impurities found by the labs were grouped under “Other interesting chemicals” without further explanation
Omitting Information Crucial for Associating the Rockets with a Chemical Attack
All samples were taken from the immediate vicinity of impact rocket sites. In order to rule out other sources for the sarin contamination, samples should have been taken at locations within the attacked area that are not near any impact site. This was not done.
Just to avoid misinterpretation: Despite this, there is still evidence associating the rockets found in Zamalka with the attack (unlike the M14).
While results are reported for multiple samples from the rocket bodies found in Zamalka, none of the six wipe samples taken at the site of the M14 rocket body were from the actual rocket. No reason was given for this omission. Since it now seems that the M14 is not related to any chemical attack, this omission is especially concerning.
In page 23, an "Impact Site Number 2" is first mentioned. While other sites were photographed and sampled, this was not. An azimuth was given for it (pointing at the same base), but without explaining how it was calculated. There was also no mention of a rocket body at that location. Based on the omission pattern seen so far, it is probably a safe bet that this site contained evidence of a conventional attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment