- 18 Apr 2018 16:40
#14907367
Well those are not really the words in the report.
- True, though it explains in detail how the investigation was conducted.
- This refers to particular hazmat teams who arrived later that afternoon (the attack happened early morning) and reported early detection of sarin.
- 57 (of 247) patients were admitted to hospitals at times incompatible with the time of the incident, thought this can be attributed to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions.
- That refers to a single sample (No. 13). It is biologically impossible, thus most likely the result of cross-contamination in the sampling process.
- Treatment administered to victims frequently involved oxygen and cortisone therapy. Such treatment is not recommended for sarin poisoning, but is recommended mainly for lung damage, as would be caused by either chlorine or vacuum bombs.
- It says: "On the basis of its consultations with two medical experts, the Mechanism found that the response carried out by rescue workers and medical personnel in Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017 had been essentially consistent with the use of sarin on such a scale." Exactly the opposite.
- Not what it says. They know the aircraft was within 5km, sufficient for deployment of an aerial bomb.
- Not exactly, the pilot claimed to have been within 7 to 9 km of Khan Shaykhun at the relevant time (also sufficiently close for deployment though).
So basically you pick a number of inconsistencies being pointed out in a 30-page report (with various links to more info), wrongly report them and conveniently ignore everything else? Read it and look at the whole picture.
Heisenberg wrote:Yeah, that's the one. I remember reading it when it was first leaked. The report is littered with very strange discrepancies, and doesn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny. For example:
-The investigators note in the report that they never visited the site of the alleged attack.
-The people who first "identified the presence of sarin" did so using a device, the "Dräger X-am 7000 ambient air monitor" that "was not known to be able to detect sarin"
-That hospitals began admitting patients with "sarin poisoning" before the attack even allegedly occurred, including in a hospital 125km away from the site.
-That the samples on which the conclusion was based had no reliable custody chain, and in some cases contained wild inconsistencies, such as sarin being present in the urine but not the bloodstream - something medical investigators stated is biologically impossible.
-That victims at Khan Sheikhoun were treated with oxygen and cortisone therapy, which are not treatments for sarin poisoning
-That the response by "rescue workers" was inconsistent with a large scale sarin attack
-That the aircraft that allegedly carried out the attack was never any closer than 3 miles away from the site of the attack.
-That the pilot's claims to have been involved in a conventional weapons strike on another site were consistent with the flight logs, and with the flight data provided by the USA.
-As always, the claims of "non-State actors" including Ahrar al-Sham and the Nusra Front, are treated with significantly less scepticism than they should be.
From this, they conclude that they are "confident" that the aircraft in question dropped bombs containing sarin on Khan Sheikhoun. So like I said, it is a very strange document that doesn't support the conclusions of its authors.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't find that, or the phoned-in French "intelligence" report, very convincing.
Well those are not really the words in the report.
- True, though it explains in detail how the investigation was conducted.
- This refers to particular hazmat teams who arrived later that afternoon (the attack happened early morning) and reported early detection of sarin.
- 57 (of 247) patients were admitted to hospitals at times incompatible with the time of the incident, thought this can be attributed to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions.
- That refers to a single sample (No. 13). It is biologically impossible, thus most likely the result of cross-contamination in the sampling process.
- Treatment administered to victims frequently involved oxygen and cortisone therapy. Such treatment is not recommended for sarin poisoning, but is recommended mainly for lung damage, as would be caused by either chlorine or vacuum bombs.
- It says: "On the basis of its consultations with two medical experts, the Mechanism found that the response carried out by rescue workers and medical personnel in Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017 had been essentially consistent with the use of sarin on such a scale." Exactly the opposite.
- Not what it says. They know the aircraft was within 5km, sufficient for deployment of an aerial bomb.
- Not exactly, the pilot claimed to have been within 7 to 9 km of Khan Shaykhun at the relevant time (also sufficiently close for deployment though).
So basically you pick a number of inconsistencies being pointed out in a 30-page report (with various links to more info), wrongly report them and conveniently ignore everything else? Read it and look at the whole picture.
- By FiveofSwords
- By wat0n