The U.S. Army has admitted that it secretly conducted at least 239 germ warfare tests in locations across the country, targeting unsuspecting Americans.
The post Conspiracy Theory? US Army Has Admitted to Conducting 100s of Germ Warfare Tests On Americans appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
The U.S. government is responsible for conducting one of the largest human experiments in history by simulating a germ warfare attack on thousands of unsuspecting Americans.
The post U.S. Gov’t Exposed for Conducting Bio-Warfare Experiments in San Francisco that Killed US Citizens appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
The Pentagon has just dispatched C-130H Sprayers from the Air Force Reserve’s 910th Airlift Wing residing in Youngstown, Ohio to Texas in response to Hurricane Harvey.
The aircraft are outfitted with spraying equipment tasked with ‘minimizing the impact of the brutal storm’s aftermath’.
According to the article, the specially outfitted C-130Hs can spray wide areas with various chemicals for ‘multiple applications, including dispersing oil spills, destroying invasive vegetation, and controlling insect populations’.
Because there is so much standing and heavily polluted water around Houston and other areas affected by the storm, insects populations are bound to explode, which poses a major health risk to the population of southeastern Texas and the first responders working to get the area back on its feet.
Mosquitoes that can carry and transmit malaria, west nile virus, zika, and multiple types of encephalitis will be the target of the operation.
Supposedly the C-130s will treat over six million acres of land while dispatched to the region, far more territory than in previous post-hurricane operations.
Houstonians and other surrounding areas are about to get their daily dose of chemtrails in large amounts. Each aircraft can spray 190,000 acres per day emitting chemicals into the atmosphere and ultimately ending up in living organisms.
Back in the Vietnam War, the Pentagon launched its herbicidal warfare coined Operation Ranch Hand, which sprayed Agent Orange for deforestation purposes.
According to the American Cancer Society, “there is now quite a bit of evidence about the health effects of Agent Orange” on the human body.
Some returning veterans from Vietnam began reporting skin rashes, cancer, psychological symptoms, birth defects in their children, and other health problems in the 1970’s. In 1979, a class action lawsuit was filed against major herbicide manufacturers and was settled in 1984 out of court forming Agent Orange Settlement Fund.
Watch the 910th Aerial Spray C-130H in action spraying insecticides into the atmosphere over Charleston..
The article ends by telling Texans don’t be alarmed if you see or hear a C-130H Sprayer flying at low altitude dumping chemicals behind it.
The lesson above dating back to Vietnam is heed the warning that the Pentagon is still willing to spray chemicals into the atmosphere with disregard to human life.
In the 1960"s and 1970"s the US government tested chemical and biological weapons on US troops in still little known secret programs called Projects 112 and SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). The Vietnam era tests involved some 6,000 military personnel being subject to experiments involving deadly nerve agents like sarin and VX, as well as biological agents like E. Coli, all of which can result in quick death or potential lifelong debilitating health issues such as long-term central nervous system failure. A fatal dose of VX nerve agent, for example, can kill in minutes, but it is unknown if the program resulted in deaths because documents remain classified as "Top Secret" even 50 years later. Veterans advocacy groups have long tried to get specifics of the program declassified in the hopes that disclosure might allow victims of the tests access to health benefits and better medical treatment, but on Thursday Congress slammed the door on these attempts, leaving veterans and some congressional sponsors outraged.
USS George Eastman personnel were among those identified by the National
Academies of Sciences as subject to US government experiments in biochem warfare.
Some limited details of the highly classified program came to light in 2000, when the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained documents related to the program from the Pentagon in order to study medical treatments for claimants. But veteran victims of testing have long been left in the lurch as the Pentagon decides how much information should be shared with the public. Veterans Affairs has an official statement on its website - the result of in-house studies in coordination with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, claiming there"s no evidence that exposure has led to ill-health:
Project 112/Project SHAD, or Shipboard Hazard and Defense, was a series of tests conducted by the Department of Defense from 1962 to 1974. Servicemembers participated in conducting the tests. The purpose was to determine the potential risks to U.S. warships and American forces from chemical and biological warfare agents.
To date, there is no clear evidence of specific, long-term health problems associated with participation in Project SHAD.
Disturbingly, the National Academies admits in a 2016 study that among the 6000 personnel involved in the tests...
Only some of the involved military personnel were aware of the nature of the tests at the time they were conducted.
Table: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine study of
Project SHAD agents used on troop personnel and hypothesized health effects.
Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., Don Young, R-Alaska, and Walter Jones, R-N.C. have worked on behalf of veterans groups to put the issue before Congress. The congressmen sponsored language in a defense policy bill this week that would force the secretary of defense to either declassify documents related to the chemical program or explain to Congress why he can"t. The Pentagon has kept silent on the issue.
On Thursday the House Rules Committee, which decides what goes before the House floor, struck down the proposal, so the declassification won"t even be up for discussion before Congress. An enraged Rep. Thompson called the fact that it didn"t even make it out of committee "shameful" and took to the house floor saying:
These tests were an ugly part of our history. They put veteran lives at risk. And our veterans have every right to know what it was they were exposed to, how much they were exposed to, we need to think about their safety and their security.
A number of veteran spokespersons questioned how greater public knowledge of the experiments would compromise national security, which appears to be the Pentagon"s position. Government classification often has more to do with covering up embarrassing secrets and preventing lawsuits than national security. A number of outrageously immoral programs going back to the middle of the last century are already well-known and documented, including Mk-Ultra, Operation Paperclip, and nuclear testing on soldiers. Thompson told McClatchy News just prior to the proposal going to committee:
It’s been over 50 years since these tests were conducted and the DOD has yet to provide a complete accounting of what truly happened to our service members. Veterans can’t wait any longer.
It is entirely possible that buried amidst the stacks of Top Secret DoD documentation on project SHAD is the United States" own horrific Ronald Maddison story. Maddison was victim of what is widely considered to be the most sickeningly scandalous case of human experimentation in UK history. In 1953 Maddison, a 20-year-old Royal Air Force engineer, thought he had volunteered for mild experiments related to curing the common cold. Instead he was given a large dose of liquid sarin drops applied directly to his skin by military scientists at England"s Porton Down labs in order to study the effects. Maddison died an agonizing death, which the UK government spent decades covering up.
Ronald Maddison, subject of
UK chemical testing at Porton Down
Details of the Ronald Maddison story only came to light over 50 years after his death, when an unwitting eyewitness named Alfred Thornhill went public. Thornhill told The Guardian:
"I saw his leg rise up from the bed and I saw his skin begin turning blue. It started from the ankle and started spreading up his leg. It was like watching somebody pouring a blue liquid into a glass, it just began filling up. I was standing by the bed gawping. It was like watching something from outer space and then one of the doctors produced the biggest needle I had ever seen. It was the size of a bicycle pump and went down onto the lad"s body. The sister saw me gawping and told me to get out."
Maddison"s ordeal was not an isolated case of chemical weapons testing using human guinea pigs in either Britain or America, but it was certainly one of the ugliest in terms of the circumstances of his death. As 6000 possibly sick US veterans got the door slammed in their faces yesterday regarding project SHAD, we must ask: what is the Pentagon hiding?
If there was any confusion whether in addition to Moscow, Beijing was also behind Assad, today all doubts were laid to rest when both Russia and China called on all involved parties "to support the efforts of the OPCW and the United Nations in investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria," according to a joint statement by Russian and Chinese leaders on the current international situation posted on Kremlin website on Tuesday, following a meeting between Putin and China"s president Xi Jinping.
"The sides emphasize that in matters of chemical weapons in Syria, all parties, with respect to Syrian sovereignty, must support the efforts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and relevant UN structures to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation in order to obtain irrefutable evidence, establish genuine circumstances and draw conclusions that are capable of withstanding the verification by facts and time."
Additionally, in the document Russia and China both "strongly condemn any use of chemical weapons anywhere and by anyone."
The statement came days after the White House claimed last week that a new attack involving chemical weapons was being prepared by the Syrian government, however, failed to and declined to present any evidence. Washington vowed to make Syrian authorities "pay a heavy price" in case of chemical weapons use. Commenting on the White House"s statement, the Kremlin said that it considers US threats against Syrian legitimate leadership to be "unacceptable." Damascus also denied the information.
Furthermore, after a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, the two sides called for respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, as well as for a political solution to the Arab country"s crisis through an inclusive dialogue.
"The parties underline the necessity of respecting the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, call for settlement of the Syrian crisis in a political and diplomatic manner through broad intra-Syrian dialogue without any preconditions and external intervention, for a search for a political settlement option that matches the particular Syrian conditions and takes the concerns of all the parties to the conflict into account.”
Moscow and Beijing also said they welcome the Geneva talks between representatives of Syrian government and the opposition, the statement said.
Meanwhile, going back to the original fake chemical attack that was used to justify the US ballistic missile strikes on Syria in April, Damascus has repeatedly denied any involvement in the incident and said that the Syrian government doesn"t possess chemical weapons as the full destruction of Damascus’ chemical weapons stockpile had been confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in January 2016.
So far the US has failed to explain why it refuses to accept the Syrian offer to investigate the airbase that served as the alleged source of the chemical attack, although one particular explanation is quite obvious to all. In any case, should Trump resort to another attack on Syria, once again using the fabricated excuse that Assad"s regime used chemical weapons, this time the US will have not only Russia but China as its foreign policy adversaries, as the global axes are becoming increasingly more distinct ahead of the next world war.
What could be smellier and more tempting bait to get ISIS to launch a chemical-weapon attack than a US guarantee that “any” chemical weapon attack in Syria will be automatically blamed on Assad’s regime and will automatically result in the US attacking Assad and all of ISIS’s other enemies?
Today the White House offered ISIS that ironclad guarantee.
Today, the White House issued a carte blanc guarantee to ISIS, pledging that the Assad regime will pay a heavy price for any chemical weapon attack that happens inside of Syria:
The Trump administration issued a rare, preemptive warning to the Syrian regime against launching any chemical weapons attacks, warning Damascus will “pay a heavy price” if it refuses to heed Washington’s red line. (The Washington Times)
The use of the term “red line” makes this more than just another line in the sand because of its historic overtones. Assad and everyone else in the world remembers the political price Obama paid for stating that a chemical weapons attack would be a “red line” for the US that Syria dare not cross. When an attack did happen, which Obama doubted was due to Syria, he refused to cross that line and was criticized for cowardice for years. I think everyone knows that Trump is not about to repeat that kind of retreat from his threat.
To make it even more clear that the US will interpret a chemical weapon attack in Syria as justifying an attack against Assad’s regime, the statement continued as follows:
“the United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack … similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4, 2017, chemical weapons attack.” (Italics mine.)
That statement ties the current threat to the last time the US attacked Assad based on the US government’s claimed belief that he used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, which set a precedent for future responses.
As the Washington Times article points out, the White House has revealed none of the particulars that it claims prove that preparations are being made by Assad’s military for such a chemical attack on the Syrian people. That is not unusual in that nations are reluctant to reveal their intelligence, lest it also provide clues as to how the intelligence was gathered; but it also calls to mind the unsupported claims made by the Bush regime that Saddam Hussein was making chemical weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam was not doing.
When evidence was provided before the entire UN for Saddam’s supposed weapons manufacturing, even I sat and thought, “That’s it? That’s all you’ve got?” I could see leaps to conclusions in every statement that Colin Powell made, and I wanted to believe him because I knew we were going to attack and because I had voted for Bush and because I respected Powell and because and I hoped that our nation would never go to war for illegitimate reasons. So, I greatly hoped to see that Powell would prove the case. By the conclusion of Powell’s presentation to the UN, however, I was certain we were going to war for illegitimate reasons. The leaps of logic were glaring, just as they are now.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley raised the specter of a wider war,threatening Syria’s allies in Moscow and Tehran.
Sounds like intended justification for a wider war to me! And the feared event hasn’t even happened yet. Since fear-mongering has always been a war-monger’s best tool, I have a question:
If this threat is so grave that it means we would have to take on the risk of a wider war that could involve Russia, and if our concern is humanitarian, why don’t we just selectively target the chemical preparations right now, blowing up the preparations facility where they claim the chemicals are being “mixed,” and, thus, save a lot of human suffering before it happens? Wouldn’t it be better, if our interests are purely humanitarian, to prevent the suffering, rather than put out a statement that could easily (even if not intentionally) bait ISIS into launching its own attack?
I’m sure we’ve thought all of this through because administration officials have even described the attack that hasn’t happened yet as ““another mass murder attack using chemical weapons.” (Hmm. We KNOW it is going to be another mass murder attack, but we’re going to let it happen?)
In other words, this attack that hasn’t happened yet (so does not yet even exist) is another one just like the last one that justified our last strange attack against Syria, which seemed to accomplish nothing but distraction from the issues that were raging in the press about Trump colluding with Russia at the time. (What? We blew a tiny three-foot hole in a runway, and darkened some bunkers from which the planes had already been removed (but didn’t destroy either the bunkers or the planes). Much smoke, but not much fire? The problems were patched in half a day, and the airport was back up and running.)
Here is where it gets really interesting … and evil.
As if all the above were not suspicious enough, let’s look at another article that adds some clarity as to what the US ambassador to the UN pledged in advance of the attack that Assad is supposedly preparing:
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley in a tweet added that Assad’s allies would be responsible too.
“Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people,” she tweeted. (CNS News)
Whoa! Notice the use of the word “any.” Surely, US ambassadors choose their working carefully, knowing full well the entire world will parse every word for its significance in trying to discern what the US will really do when the US promises to intensify its war. “ANY” further attack “WILL BE BLAMED ON ASSAD!”
This is the part that I said becomes a carte blanc promise to ISIS that any false-flag event it creates will be used as an excuse to attack Assad. The White House has already promised that it will attack Assad for “ANY” attack that it sees happen — presumably meaning any chemical attack, but even that isn’t clear. Just “any” attack. So, launch an attack, ISIS, because we are ready with a hair trigger to respond directly against Assad for anything we see!
Could the US offer smellier bait to ISIS than that if it tried? Even if you want to assume the cleanest of humanitarian motives on the part of the US regime, you would have to, in that case, assume an incredibly inept and fully stupid US administration because anyone can figure out that ISIS will smell this bait and do all it can to hit on it and bring about the promised response. If the Trump administration did not intend to bait ISIS, then they surely have to be stupider than any of the rest of us to not have seen that ISIS will now do everything it can to draw the US into a more direct confrontation with the Assad regime.
BUT THIS DOESN’T EVEN STOP THERE. Look at the all the rest of what the US ambassador said! She stated outright — no holds barred — that both Russia and Iran will also be held directly responsible for “ANY” attack that the US sees happen.This is a pledge to ISIS that, if they can pull this off, the US will also strongly attack their other greatest enemies, Iran and Russia!
The US ambassador even has the affront to say that Russia SUPPORTS Assad in his efforts to kill his own people. It’s one thing to say that Russia supports Assad’s fight against ISIS, which they surely and unreservedly do, but she has claimed that Russia supports Assad’s goals of killing his own people. She states that the US will hold Russia and Iran, which we know the Trump regime is gunning for, as equally responsible for “any” attack that happens (presumably any chemical attack).
Could ISIS possibly be given stronger bait to launch its own false-flag attack than a promise that “the Great Satan” will go after Assad, Iran and even Russia if we see any attack happen against the Syrian people! This is an ISIS dream! The Trump administration has endangered the Syrian people by making such a brash promise that virtually assures ISIS will do everything it can to murder them. The event hasn’t even happened, and we’ve decided it’s another “another mass murder” just like the last one.
CNS News reported Iran’s response as follows:
Iran’s state-funded Press TV commented that the U.S. warning “risks sparking a major confrontation between parties to the Syrian conflict and complicating efforts aimed at resolving it.”
I hate to ever be on the side of saying Iran is right, just as I hated to be on the side of saying Iraq’s ambassador was right when he called Powell’s presentation to the UN “a dog and pony show,” but Iran is right. Of course the White House’s statement risks sparking a major confrontation. In fact, “sparking” is far too week of a word as is “risks.” It guarantees that ISIS will do all it can to create a major conflagration between the US and Russia and Iran — all of whom are its sworn enemies and all of whom it would LOVE to see embroiled in a hot war with each other!
Russia responded by calling the US statement what it is:
“White House Threatens to Murder More Syrians Over Imaginary ‘Chemical Weapons Attacks’”
Yes, it is the US that in encouraging the “murder of more Syrians.” How can any administration be so blatantly dumb as not to see that they have just given the ultimate pledge of support to ISIS if ISIS will just attack more Syrian people! Yes, the US has just officially pledged full-on military support to ISIS if it will murder the Syrian people by promising that “any” attack will be blamed on Assad, Iran and Russia!
This administration is either stupid beyond belief or evil beyond belief. They could not possibly have made any statements that would be more likely to cause the death of Syrian people than these. That presses me to conclude this administration has completely sold out to the neocons and the US military-industrial establishment by pledging itself to a more intense war with Russia and Iran if chemical weapons are used on the Syrian people. EVEN IF ASSAD IS PLANNING TO ATTACK HIS OWN PEOPLE WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS, WE HAVE VIRTUALLY ASSURED THAT ISIS WILL DO ITS BEST TO DO THE SAME!
This is an administration that wants a wider war with Iran and Russia! That is why Iran and Russia responded as they did.
Russia and Iran had already stated that any further strikes like the one that the US claimed was retaliatory last time would cross their own “red lines.” While Iran could easily be taken as mere saber rattling, that is not usually Russia’s approach. It’s a little more adult than that. As the CNS article reminds everyone, Russia already stated,
From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.
Russia has also warned that any US aircraft operating west of the Euphrates river will be treated as targets.
Syria has, naturally, denied that it is preparing a chemical weapons attack against its own people and just stated that this is an attempt by the US to initiate a broader diplomatic attack against Syria and possibly a military attack.
Frants Klintsevich, first deputy chairman of the defense and security committee in the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, accused the United States of “preparing a new attack on the positions of Syrian forces.”
The Kremlin also dismissed the White House statement, which had warned that Assad and his military would “pay a heavy price” if it goes ahead with the attack. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov … also criticized the Trump administration for using the phrase “another chemical weapons attack,” arguing that an independent investigation into the April attack was never conducted despite Russia’s calls for one. (Zero Hedge)
In a word, Iran called the US warning an “escalation” and Russia called it “provocation.”
In an earlier article titled “Getting Trumped and Thumped in Syria,” I highlighted a few of the numerous reasons to doubt that any of the chemical attacks in Syria (even during the Obama administration) were orchestrated by the Assad regime:
Dr. Theodore Postol has won many awards as a professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. He specializes in ballistic missiles and chemical dispersion clouds. He helps the US government with its weapons program and trains other scientists in weapon technology. Postol debunked the 2013 claims that a chemical incident was caused by one of Assad’s missiles. Briefings, such as his, that countered initial information linking the chemicals to Assad are why Obama did not follow through with his red-line threat.
… Postol does not believe this year’s incident was a missile sent in by Assad, and he believes the site shows evidence of tampering. He notes many stunning errors in the reports that have tried to link both the 2013 chemical incident and the 2017 one to Bashar Assad: “the government’s new report [is] obviously false, misleading and amateurish…. What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true.”
That article cited several other analysts and their reasons for disbelieving that any chemical weapons attacks were carried out by Assad’s forces.
We all can remember how well an attack against Syria back in April worked to terminate the national conversation in the press about Trump’s collusion with Russia when the US attacked Assad. That attack boldly proved Trump was willing to challenge Russia and proved Trump was militarily mighty … like Putin. As a result, the collusion conversation ended instantly (though Trump, true to form, couldn’t resist re-igniting the conversation with his tweets a few days later because he seems to thrive on chaos and lots of chatter about himself).
Also true to form this time around, and not at all surprising,
The overnight White House threat caught many in Trump’s own administration by surprise. Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements said they were caught off guard, and it appeared the underlying intelligence information was known only to a small group of senior officials. Typically, the State Department, Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies would all be consulted before a White House declaration sure to ricochet across foreign capitals. (AP)
Why break with tradition? Especially when the element of surprise is key to military attacks, though usually it is used against the enemy and not against one’s own.
Speaking of past precedence, who cannot hear in the White House’s current warnings an echo of Trump’s words back then when he justified the airstrike he was about to launch in April:
When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal – people were shocked to hear what gas it was. That crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line, many, many lines.
We can also all remember how much Trump relished telling the story about how he was dining on scrumptious chocolate cake with the president of China when he informed President Xi Jinping in the middle of a mouth-stopping bite about how he was, at just that moment, attacking Syria.
The US president practically salivated as he artfully described the encounter. That “retaliatory” attack immediately became the high moment in Trump’s career as US president because even his loudest critics (wholly owned by the military-industrial complex as the mainstream media is) praised him for finally rising to become “presidential.” Nothing like a strong military attack to make you look presidential.
What a beautiful way to remove the heat of the press … then … and now.
Now that special investigator Robert Mueller is climbing all over Trump and his son-in-law, Eric Kushner — digging into every new hole he can think to explore, given his broad scope for investigation — Trump has more need than ever to create a more potent story to distract the press. However, he needs justification for taking bigger military action. Why not revert to what worked so well the last time?
Who cannot hear in the following words at the close of the Zero Hedge article an echo of that earlier event with President Xi Jinpeng?
As AP adds, also on Monday, Trump had dinner with Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and other top officials as he hosted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the White House.
I wonder if they were dining on chocolate cake.
Speaking of cake, the Pentagon is again bringing out the term “weapons of mass destruction” in describing what it believes Syria is about to do. Doesn’t that bring to the olfactory memory the delightfully fresh smell of yellow cake for you?
And the nice thing about retaliating against an actual chemical weapons attack — should one be successfully enticed into being — is that it provides US international cover for broadened military action against Iran and Russia because use of chemical weapons is banned under UN treaty. And you can say you did all you could to warn them not to do this!
Intriguingly, the new preparations for a chemical-weapons attack are taking place at the very same airport the US so strategically destroyed two months ago. Maybe that’s why we did so little real damage at that airport, even though we used up almost $50 million worth of our finest cruise missiles. We wouldn’t want to risk taking out the actual chemical-weapons plant or depot. We knew we would need that facility for a further excuse later on. So, don’t take out their capacity to use it.
For some reason, we did not take out the actual chemical-weapons production facility last time but just smoked a few bunkers that had been holding some jalopy fighter jets prior to our peculiar advance notice that we were sending our own missiles to strike the facility, thus allowing the museum-grade fighter jets to be lofted safely into the air prior to the arrival of our missiles. We didn’t want to needlessly snuff out any relics. That, and we made a chuck-hole in … not an actual runway, but a taxiway. Useful only as a photo-op and not a very impressive one at that!
For its part, the US military-industrial establishment — by which I include the Wall Street financiers, as well as the manufacturers of weapons — always wants a larger war to heat up its corner of the economy. However, I have never seen such a blatant attempt to create a “pre-emptive” excuse to broaden a conflict. Apparently, we are going to war with Russia and Iran in Syria where the war is safely off of US soil but can create a lot of demand for new US military hardware. (After all, even the war mongers don’t want to lose their own houses and factories.)
The battle is virtually assured. We just need to create sufficient cause. And, so, we wait only for ISIS to act now that we’ve assured them our retaliation will all be directed at their enemies!
We are either incredibly stupid … or incredibly evil!
Is not all of this another betrayal by Trump on his promises to his supporters, but will they care? As Michael Krieger has said on his Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
Part of Trump’s appeal to many of his voters was, at least ostensibly, the idea that he would employ a less hawkish/neocon foreign policy than his opponent Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton…. The lobbing of tomahawk missiles into Syrian based on the fairytale that Assad launched a chemical weapons attack was the first sign that Trump is easily manipulated and impulsive. In fact, the episode bothered me so much I wrote a post detailing the dire ramifications titled, Prepare for Impact – This is the Beginning of the End for U.S. Empire.
According to Krieger,
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon…. Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president’s determination to ignore the evidence. “None of this makes any sense,” one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. “We KNOW that there was no chemical attack … the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth … I guess it didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.
As I revealed on this blog, in an article titled “Hillary’s Wars,” attacking Syria was Killary Klinton’s plan from day one. It was, in fact, why we went to war to oust the Kadaffi regime from Libya as plainly revealed in Wikileak’s documents from Hillary’s state department. It was why the whole Benghazi thing happened and was covered up by Killary. (The embassy in Benghazi attacked by Libya BECAUSE it was being used by the US as headquarters for US efforts to depose and/or kill Kadaffi. That made the embassy a legitimate war target. All laid out in “Hillary’s Wars.”)
Attacking Syria is a masterplan of the military-industrial complex that goes back a long way. From the beginning, as I pointed out in that article, the Libyan and Syrian wars were all about Iran. Hillary, in her own delusional way, believed Russia would stay out of the conflict. Now, it appears we actually want a proxy war with Russia, too. What better way to use up a lot of military hardware and show our strength against Russia over someone else’s soil?
The US military-industrial complex needs to reposition from the tattered, dated and wearying war on terror to a new cold war with Russia. Better yet, a hot war with Russia on foreign soil, as neither nation will want to encourage the battle to come onto their own soil. At the same time, what better way for Trump to prove he is not a Russian collaborator and silence those endless accusations while moving the conversation to something more praiseworthy? Everyone wins. Well, everyone in the administration.
Looks like, no matter who you voted for, Killary Klinton or Trojan Trump, you ultimately get the same military-industrial establishment! Trump’s weakness has been found and is now being exploited by the deep state. Trump needs praise. It is his constant fuel. In the very least, he needs constant attention. To that end, even negative press is better than none at all. Thus, he reignites fires as quickly as he puts them out because he cannot handle more than one day’s silence about himself. Anyone who must have continual praise or attention is easy to exploit. As with many caesars of the past, the need for praise and attention is one of the worst weaknesses an emperor can have.
As Krieger quoted in is article on the end of American empire,
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Authored by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,
The BBC reportedly has exclusive proof that the Syrian government is continuing to produce chemical weapons in violation of a deal reached in 2013. Pursuant to that deal, the Syrian government was supposed to remove its entire stockpile, which the U.N. said had already been achieved in 2014.
According to a document provided to the BBC by a “Western intelligence agency,” chemical and biological munitions are being produced at three main sites near Damascus and Hama. The document also alleges that Iran and Russia are well aware of these activities.
Even though the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) monitors these sites, the document alleges that the manufacture of chemical weapons continues behind closed doors.
According to the BBC, the OPCW has confirmed that it has asked the Syrian authorities to declare the relevant parts of the sites per Syria’s obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Syrian authorities have declared sections of those sites, but the OPCW was not in a position to “confirm that the [Syrian] declaration is complete and accurate.”
In its report, the BBC then tied the information from the document into the wider issue at hand — that the Syrian government is deemed by Western powers to be the number one culprit behind the most recent chemical weapons attack at the beginning of April.
Most disturbing, however, is the fact that the BBC advanced this information with the following provisos buried in the final paragraphs of its report:
“The intelligence information about the suspected weapons manufacturing sites was shared with the BBC on condition the agency providing it would not be named.
“It does not give detail about how the alleged evidence was gathered.” [emphasis added]
It wouldn’t be surprising to most people if the Syrian government is still producing chemical weapons at those sites (or any other sites, for that matter). However, there is a glaring problem with these claims: What is the standard of proof? An unnamed “intelligence agency” shares information with a media network without providing any detail as to how it actually assessed or compiled its data?
This is the same media network that in 2013 reported on U.N. investigator Carla Del Ponte’s view that, in fact, Syrian rebels likely used sarin gas to attack civilians in the major attacks in 2013. So far, very little concrete evidence regarding the Syrian government’s culpability in any of the chemical weapons attacks throughout the conflict has emerged, including the most recent one in April. As such, it is no surprise that the BBC has to resort to these kinds of tactics.
Despite the disclaimer mentioned in the article, the title of the BBC report was “Syria government ‘producing chemical weapons at research facilities,’” though the editors likely knew full well very few people would even bother to read the first paragraph, let alone the last few paragraphs, which acknowledged the absurdity of the information presented.
A parallel can be drawn between this narrative and the numerous allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. As noted by Glenn Greenwald in December, the allegations presented by the mainstream media regarding Russian interference were no substitute for concrete proof:
“There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof.”
Sound familiar?
Regardless of the accusation, the political nature of the issue at hand, and the parties involved, employing Greenwald’s words of warning are the only way to distinguish fact from fiction. If we don’t know the facts for sure, we shouldn’t promulgate them without question, especially given the ulterior motives of the corporate media and the agencies that advise them (in the case of Syria, the agenda of these parties is regime change).
Real journalism requires a much higher standard than that, assuming our job is to publish the truth. The stakes are high in Syria, and we can’t afford to let the U.S. government and allies employ a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality — the same kind we have seen cause such widespread catastrophe in countries such as Iraq and Libya.
As the New York Times was forced to admit in 2004, approximately a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq:
“But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.”
This time, let’s question the propaganda before the invasion - not after it.
Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
A senior Rand analyst, inadvertently, gave the game away in a recent article inculpating Syrian President Bashar al Assad over the alleged toxic massacre of civilians on April 4. The Rand Corporation, a longtime conduit for CIA propaganda, wrote: «The use of chemical weapons today provokes international condemnation… Those who order their deployment risk being charged with war crimes».
The Western objective, as tacitly admitted above, is therefore to brand the Syrian leader and his government as depraved war criminals, deserving pariah status and excommunication by the «international community».
The alleged use of chemical weapons, a particularly odious weapon of mass destruction (WMD), serves as an effective prop to channel Western public outrage against Assad. Allegedly killing civilians with bullets and bombs just doesn’t have the same psychological power to incite public disgust. Poisoning little children with lethal chemicals is a more effective label with which to demonize the alleged perpetrator.
But the more pertinent WMD issue here is Weapon of Mass Disorientation. And in particular how Western governments, their servile corporate-controlled media, like the Rand Corp, New York Times, CNN, BBC, Guardian and France 24, and so on, and local proxy mercenaries inside Syria are covertly deploying deadly chemicals in a series of propaganda stunts. Not only deploying deadly chemicals against civilians in a most cynical and callous way, but getting away with their crimes of murder through an audacious distortion of reality. All made possible because of the West’s media weapon of mass disorientation.
By massive manipulation of facts and images, the Western public are disorientated to condone the wider criminal agenda that their governments are pushing – that of regime change. Part of that disorientation involves the Western public suspending critical thinking over what are otherwise highly dubious circumstances and claims; it also involves an abject manipulation of perception and emotions, whereby some victims of violence are the focus for Western public trauma, while many other victims in Syria and elsewhere are unseen or overlooked with callous indifference. Those anomalies surely speak of a phenomenal disorientation of Western public intelligence, emotion and morals.
Immediately following the incident in the militant-held Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, in northern Idlib Province, on April 4, Western governments and the corporate news media began accusing the Syrian leader of responsibility for a «chemical weapon attack». The US ambassador the UN Nikki Haley made a dramatic presentation at the Security Council on April 5, holding aloft enlarged photos purportedly of children dying from toxic exposure. Two days later, on April 7, US President Donald Trump ordered a full-scale barrage of cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase out of «revenge» for the murder of «beautiful babies».
Trump’s decision to attack Syria was reportedly prompted by his disgust at watching videos of the alleged victims, and by the emotional angst that his daughter and special advisor Ivanka Trump felt on also watching the same footage. The video and images were, by the way, released to the Western news media solely by militant-aligned sources, the so-called White Helmets, operating at the location of the alleged chemical weapon attack.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer later said that any one «who gases a baby» can expect more US military retribution. Spicer also made the crass claim that Syrian President Assad was «worse than Hitler» because of his alleged uniquely barbaric use of chemical weapons on civilians.
Meanwhile, US and British warplanes operating in Syria, Iraq and Yemen are slaughtering at the very same time hundreds of civilians. In Yemen, thousands of children are dying from starvation due to a US-backed blockade on that country by Saudi Arabia in its war for regime change there. Why aren’t Donald Trump, his daughter Ivanka, and his spokesman Sean Spicer traumatized by these deaths? Why is the Western public also not outraged, traumatized?
In Syria, on Easter Saturday, April 15, busloads of civilians were murdered by terrorist suicide bombers, whom the Western governments and media refer to as «rebels». Over 120 civilians were massacred including 68 children. Where was the Western outrage at the images of charred children’s bodies hanging out of mangled buses? Indeed, the Western media coverage of that carnage was minimal and was downplayed with insidious words that the victims were «pro-regime supporters».
But the victims of the bus attacks were more numerous than those allegedly killed during the chemical weapons incident two weeks before at Khan Sheikhoun.
President Trump has condemned Syria’s Assad as an «animal» due to the alleged use of chemical weapons. Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has also called Assad a «monster». Clearly, the image-projection here is aimed at demonizing and dehumanizing the Syrian leader. Once that image-making is «successful» – and the saturation pejorative Western media coverage is crucial to that success – then a moral, legalistic mandate is created which allows Washington and its allies to escalate their aggression against Syria. Either through diplomatic sanctions at the United Nations or by military means with direct military force, as seen with Trump’s cruise missile barrage on April 7, or with increased support to proxy militant groups inside Syria.
All the while that Western governments and media have been demonizing Syria over alleged chemical weapons, the political-media campaign has also been directed at smearing Russia for alleged complicity because of its alliance with Syria.
Britain’s Johnson said earlier this month that Russian leader Vladimir Putin had «toxified» Russia’s international reputation by its alliance with Syria. The British diplomat’s choice of words betrayed an overly contrived attempt to push the propaganda theme.
In what should be seen as a transparently crude effort, the Western governments tried to splice Russia’s support for Syria by hyping up the «horror» of chemical weapons. The Western political momentum has since dissipated somewhat, but there was an obvious bid by the West in the days following the incident at Khan Sheikhoun to force an ultimatum on Moscow to abandon the Assad government, and to in effect cede to Western demands for regime change in Damascus.
Russia seems to have succeeded in rebuffing this tawdry tactic by holding firm to principles of international law and objective facts.
Last week, the UN-affiliated Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) issued a statement claiming that there was «incontrovertible evidence» that the lethal chemical weapon sarin was used in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4.
The OPCW did not say who used the alleged sarin. But the inference pushed by Western media was that it was the Syrian government.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov deprecated the OPCW as «discrediting» itself. The supposedly neutral, scientific organization was basing its conclusions on samples supplied by illegally armed groups, in a dubious chain of «evidence» that is neither impartial nor verifiable.
The «sarin conclusion» announced by the OPCW is in accordance with the assertions made by the US, Britain, France and Turkey. They are not disinterested parties. They are protagonists for regime change and sponsors of a covert war against the Syrian government since March 2011. Yet, audaciously, their partisan claims are afforded credibility by Western media.
Russia’s call last week for an impartial, on-site investigation into what actually happened at Sheikhoun was rejected by the Western governments. Russia’s demand for an independent probe was also supported by Iran and the Syrian government.
As Sergey Lavrov noted: «The spreading of false information on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government is being used to move away from implementing UN resolutions on finding a peaceful settlement and instead to switch to the long-cherished objective of regime change».
There is abundant evidence that sarin was not the toxic agent used at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. American MIT professor Theodore Postol, a highly accredited weapons expert, as well as neuroscientist Dr Denis O’Brien, are just two of many sources who have concluded from the observing the symptoms and circumstances that sarin could not have possibly been used.
There is abundant evidence too that the Western-backed regime-change militants in Syria have been involved in fabricating supposed «chemical weapons» incidents, creating media-ready videos which the Western news outlets have avidly disseminated and which Western governments have cited as «evidence» against Assad. That was the conclusion of the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, among other reputable sources.
Considering that the only «evidence» for the latest chemical weapon incident on April 4 comes in the form of unverifiable videos supplied by terrorist-affiliated groups, it is highly plausible that the narrative put out by these groups, the Western governments and media is false. That narrative is that Syrian warplanes dropped chemical weapons on Khan Sheikhoun, killing over 80 civilians.
By contrast, it is plausible that the entire incident is an orchestrated fabrication. That is, that there was no chemical «weapon of mass destruction» used at Khan Sheikhoun. If a weapon of that sort were used, as alleged, then one would expect the death toll to be in the hundreds, if not thousands, as happened at Halabja in 1988 when up to 5,000 Kurdish civilians were massacred by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Instead, what likely happened in Syria was simply the murder by intoxication of civilians by militants using lethal chemicals, such as cyanide or chlorine. Why were the supposed aid responders of the White Helmets not also poisoned if highly toxic sarin had been used? Why do the «responders» seem too preoccupied with making videos instead of actually treating victims with due medical care? Why have no sarin antidotes or decontaminants been requested or sent to Khan Sheikhoun in the days and weeks following the alleged attack?
Thus the militants and their media-savvy agents in the White Helmets (who are funded by Western military intelligence) could very well have staged the poisoning of unwitting civilians. The despicable, cynical act of homicide may not have even happened on the alleged date of April 4, or even in the alleged location of Khan Sheikhoun.
Bear in mind that it has been reported in the past that US and other Western military forces have «trained» the so-called Syrian «rebels» (terrorists) on the handling of lethal chemicals. Those Western media reports mendaciously spun the notion that the «rebels» were being trained in the event of Assad’s «chemical weapons arsenal being unleashed».
The Syrian government has repeatedly and categorically denied that its forces used chemical weapons at Khan Sheikhoun earlier this month or in any other incident. It says that all its chemical weapons were destroyed back in 2014 under a Russian-brokered deal, a result that was confirmed at the time by the OPCW.
Tenuously, the US Secretary of Defense James Mattis claimed last week that the Syrian government cheated the OPCW and secretly kept a portion of chemical weapons in reserve.
The Western narrative of chemical weapons (sarin) used by the Syrian government is riven with anomalies if interrogated with critical thinking. Indeed, when looked at with due skepticism, it is apparent that the Western narrative is not merely a misinformed, erroneous perspective. The whole affair is a deliberate, carefully constructed and delivered Western psychological operation, a false-flag propaganda stunt, to demonize and dehumanize the Syrian government in order to propel the Western agenda of regime change. The American CIA and British MI6 have been trying to implement regime change in Syria since 1949 in on-off clandestine projects. The chemical weapon of mass destruction allegation is but the latest ploy in a long-running project.
Western governments, their military intelligence agencies and the propaganda service of the corporate media have been working on this particular psychological operation for several years in Syria, going back to the first major «chemical weapon» incident in East Ghouta, near Damascus, in August 2013. That stunt failed to effectively demonize the Assad government then. But the Western operation has continued and evolved over time until its latest episode at Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. The «chemical weapon» nomenclature is spurious from the nature of the injuries inflicted. It is more likely an incident of mass poisoning by militants carried out on hapless victims, which is conveniently broadcast around the world by Western governments and media as a «chemical weapon of mass destruction» used by the «Assad regime».
What is overlooked, however, is the WMD weapon of mass disorientation being used against Western public. The disorientation of critical thinking, emotions and moral standards is deployed in order to more easily manipulate public consent for the Western governments’ criminal enterprise of regime change in Syria.
There is an abominable charade taking place before our very eyes. A charade in which supposedly «moral», «law-abiding», «democratic» Western governments are colluding with the most vile terror groups using the most vile means of deception and murder. Why this simple glaring truth is not recognized more widely by the Western public is because their own governments have deployed weapons of mass disorientation through dutiful mass media purporting to act as «news services».
By Theodore A. Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. Postol’s main expertise is in ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT. Before joining MIT, Postol worked as an analyst at the Office of Technology Assessment, as a science and policy adviser to the chief of naval operations, and as a researcher at Argonne National Laboratory. He also helped build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study weapons technology in relation to defense and arms control policy. Postol is a highly-decorated scientist, receiving the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society, the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Richard L. Garwin Award from the Federation of American Scientists.
For background on Dr. Postol’s previous essays on this issue, see:
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
Introduction
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.
The findings of this analysis can serve two important purposes:
This raises troubling questions about how the US political and military leadership determined that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged attack. It is particularly of concern that the WHR presented itself as a report with “high confidence” findings and that numerous high-level officials in the US government have confirmed their belief that the report was correct and to a standard of high confidence.
Methodology Used in This Analysis
The construction of the time of day at which particular video frames were generated is determined by simply using the planetary geometry of the sun angle during the day on April 4. The illustration below of the sun-angle geometry shows the Day/Night Sun Terminator at the location of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. The angle of the sun relative to local horizontal is summarized in the table that follows the image of the planetary geometry along with the temperature during the day between 6:30 AM and 6 PM.
The next set of two side-by-side images shows the shadows at a location where a large number of poison victims are being treated in what appears to be the aftermath of a poisoning event. The shadows indicate that this event occurred at about 7:30 AM. This is consistent with the possibility of a nerve agent attack at 7 AM on the morning of April 4 and it is also consistent with the allegation in the WHR that an attack occurred at 6:55 AM on that day.
The timing sequence of the attack is important for determining the consistency of the timelines with the allegations of a sarin release at the crater identified in the WHR.
Assuming there was an enough sarin released from the crater identified by the WHR to cause mass casualties at significant downwind distances, the sarin would have drifted downwind at a speed of 1 to 2 m/s and for several minutes before encountering the only location where mass casualties could have occurred from this particular release. The location where these mass casualties would have had to occur will be identified and described in the next section. If there was a sarin release elsewhere, mass casualties would have not occurred at this location but would have occurred somewhere else in the city.
Assuming the victims of the attack were exposed to the plume, the symptoms of sarin poisoning would have express themselves almost immediately. As such, the scene at 7:30 AM on April 4 is absolutely consistent with the possibility of a mass poisoning downwind of the sarin-release crater.
The next figure shows the earliest photograph we have been able to find of an individual standing by the sarin-release crater where the alleged release occurred. The photo was posted on April 4 and the shadow indicates the time of day was around 10:50 AM. Thus the individual was standing by the crater roughly 4 hours after the dispersal event.
If the dispersal event was from this crater, the area where this unprotected individual is standing would be toxic and this individual would be subjected to the severe and possibly fatal effects of sarin poisoning. As a result, this throws substantial suspicion on the possibility that the crater identified by WHR would be the source of the sarin release.
At the time of the sarin release, the temperature of the air was about 60°F and the sun was at an angle of only 8° relative to local horizontal. This means that liquid sarin left on the ground from the dispersal event would remain mostly unevaporated. By 11 AM, the temperature of the air had risen to 75° and the angle of the sun relative to horizontal was at 66°. Thus, one would expect that the combination of the rise in air temperature and the sun on the crater would lead to significant evaporation of liquid sarin left behind from the initial dispersal event. The air temperature and sun angle are such that the area around the crater should have been quite dangerous for anybody without protection to operate.
This is therefore an important indication that the crater was probably not a dispersal site of the sarin.
The final set of three photographs shows arriving victims seeking treatment at a hospital at some location in Khan Sheikhoun. The arrivals at the hospital are at between 9 and 10:30 AM on the day of the attack. This is perhaps late since victims were seriously exposed by 7:30 AM, but victims could have been trailing in after the initial arrival of severely affected victims. This time is considerably earlier than the time at which WHR alleges that a hospital was attacked while treating victims of the poisoning attack.
In the next section we discuss the location where mass casualties should have occurred if the sarin release occurred at the location alleged by the WHR.
Khan Shaykhun Sun Angles
Relative to Local Horizontal on April 4, 2017
| Local Time of Day in Khan ShayKhun on April 4, 2017 | Surface Temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit | Sun Angle in Degrees Relative to Local Horizontal |
| 6:30 | 58.16 | 1.20 |
| 7.00 | 60.24 | 8.40 |
| 7:30 | 62.39 | 15.60 |
| 8.00 | 64.55 | 22.80 |
| 8:30 | 66.68 | 30.00 |
| 9.00 | 68.74 | 37.20 |
| 9:30 | 70.69 | 44.40 |
| 10.00 | 72.51 | 51.60 |
| 10:30 | 74.15 | 58.80 |
| 11.00 | 75.59 | 66.00 |
| 11:30 | 76.81 | 73.20 |
| 12.00 | 77.80 | 80.40 |
| 12:30 | 78.53 | 87.60 |
| 13.00 | 79.01 | 94.80 |
| 13:30 | 79.24 | 102.00 |
| 14.00 | 79.22 | 109.20 |
| 14:30 | 78.96 | 116.40 |
| 15.00 | 78.48 | 123.60 |
| 15:30 | 77.81 | 130.80 |
| 16.00 | 76.99 | 138.00 |
| 16:30 | 76.04 | 145.20 |
| 17.00 | 75.03 | 152.40 |
| 17:30 | 74.01 | 159.60 |
| 18.00 | 73.05 | 166.80 |
Identification of the Location of the Mass Casualties
The figure on the next page shows the direction of the toxic sarin plume based on the assumption that the alleged release point was the crater identified by WHR. The wind conditions at the time of the release, which would have been at about 7 AM on April 4, would have carried the plume across an empty field to an isolated Hamlet roughly 300 m downwind from the crater.
Although there were some walls and structures that would have somewhat attenuated and inhibited the movement of the aerosol cloud from the release point, the open field would be an ideal stable wind environment to transmit the remaining sarin cloud with minimal distortion and dispersal. As such, it is plausible that the sarin cloud could with the weather conditions at that time have led to mass casualties at the Hamlet.
The sarin dosage level that results in 50% of exposed victims dying is known as the LD50. The LD50 for sarin is about 100 mglmin/m3.
The dose quantity mglmin/m3 can be understood simply.
An exposure of about 100 mglmin/m3 simply means that a victim is within an environment for one full minute when there is 100 mg/m3 of sarin in the air. If the victim is instead in an environment for 10 minutes where there is a density of sarin of 10 mg/m3, they will also receive a lethal dose of 100 mglmin/m3.
Assuming 5 to 10 liters were aerosolized at the crater as alleged by the WHR, this would have resulted in an average sarin exposure at the Hamlet at 300 m range of about 10 to 20 mglmin/m3, assuming wind and temperature conditions that are near ideal for lethal exposures downwind. This estimate assumes that an individual would be outside and exposed to the sarin as the gas cloud passes by.
Since a cloud of sarin would not be uniformly mixed, there will be regions in the cloud that have much higher and lower doses than the average. In addition, as the cloud passes, sarin entering into open windows of aboveground and basement rooms would tend to become trapped inside these rooms creating a significantly longer exposure to the nerve agent, certainly leading to lethal levels if residents did not evacuate the rooms immediately. Also, since the nerve agent cloud would be passing through an area that has buildings, it will tend to flow around, over buildings, and down into open basement windows, resulting in buildups of sarin in some locations and diminished levels of sarin at other locations.
As such, the Hamlet could well have been within lethal range of the sarin exposure. However, areas further downwind from the Hamlet would be sufficiently far away that the sarin will have dispersed sufficiently that it would not be capable of causing deaths.
Thus, the Hamlet area 300 m downwind of the crater is the only area where mass casualties could occur if there had been a sarin release at the crater as alleged by the WHR!
The selected video frames collected on the next two pages show three important sets of data that indicate the following:
However, the Hamlet that should have experienced major casualties if the alleged dispersal site had been correctly identified is only 300 m down range, and easily reachable by simply walking over to the site.
Yet none of the video journalists refer in any way to a mass casualty site nearby. They simply focus on a dead goat and present out of context images of a few dead birds. It is remarkable that no video journalists of the many who reported from this crater area referred in any way to the mass casualties that could only have occurred 300 m away if the attack had been executed from this crater.
These video frames were generated by reviewing hundreds of videos posted on YouTube plus additional videos and video frames found on Twitter.
Among the hundreds of videos reviewed there seems to be no more than 50 to 60 seconds of actual original scenes like those laid out in the collection of 18 videos below. The vast majority of time in the videos contains the same repeated sequences of the same dead and injured infants and adults that could all be collected into less than a couple of minutes of independent scenes.
The overwhelming evidence is that these videos repeat nothing more than redundant scenes that suggest one terrible event might have occurred. Almost none of the scenes contain any different information from the others. This raises a serious question about how much real data has been supplied that would indicate an actual significant nerve agent attack.
What is absolutely clear from the videos is that the location of the sarin dispersal site alleged by WHR and the mass casualty site that would have had to be generated if the sarin dispersal actually occurred, are not in any way related to the scenes of victims shown in the other videos. The conclusion is obvious, the alleged attack described in WHR never occurred.
Final Comments
This abbreviated summary of the facts has been constructed entirely from basic physics, video evidence, and absolutely solid analytical methods. It demonstrates without doubt that the sarin dispersal site alleged as the source of the April 4, 2017 sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun was not a nerve agent attack site.
It also shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only mass casualty site that could have resulted from this mass attack is not in any way related to the sites that are shown in video following a poisoning event of some kind at Khan Sheikhoun.
This means that the allegedly “high confidence” White House intelligence assessment ssued on April 11 that led to the conclusion that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack is not correct. For such a report to be so egregiously in error, it could not possibly have followed the most simple and proven intelligence methodologies to determine the veracity of its findings.
Since the United States justified attacking a Syrian airfield on April 7, four days before the flawed National Security Council intelligence report was released to the Congress and the public, the conclusion that follows is that the United States took military actions without the intelligence to support its decision.
Furthermore, it is clear that the WHR was not an intelligence report.
No competent intelligence professional would have made so many false claims that are totally inconsistent with the evidence. No competent intelligence professional would have accepted the findings in the WHR analysis after reviewing the data presented herein. No competent intelligence professionals would have evaluated the crater that was tampered with in terms described in the WHR.
Although it is impossible to know from a technical assessment to determine the reasons for such an egregiously amateurish report, it cannot be ruled out that the WHR was fabricated to conceal critical information from the Congress and the public.
Appendix
Resource Materials Used To DetermineLocalWeather Conditions andSun Angles
Needed to Verify the above Analysis
Khan Shaykhun, Idlib Historical Weather, Syria
The past date should be after 1st July, 2008 onwards
Tue 04th Apr, 2017
| Time Weather Temp Feels Like Rain Wind Gust Rain? Cloud Humidity Pressure | ||||||||
| 00:00 | 03:00 | 06:00 | 09:00 | 12:00 | 15:00 | 18:00 | 21:00 | |
| 10 °c | 10 °c | 13 °c | 21 °c | 25 °c | 26 °c | 23 °c | 20 °c | |
| 10 °c | 10 °c | 13 °c | 21 °c | 24 °c | 24 °c | 24 °c | 20 °c | |
| 0.0 mm 0.0 mm 0.0 mm 0.0 mm 0.0 mm 0.0 mm 0.0 mm 0.0 mm | ||||||||
| 4 mph SSW | 3 mph S | 2 mph SE | 4 mph E | 7 mph ENE | 10 mph ENE | 11 mph ENE | 10 mph ENE | |
| 8 mph | 6 mph | 4 mph | 4 mph | 8 mph | 12 mph | 17 mph | 20 mph | |
| 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 2% 1% 1% 6% 94% 91% 76% 40% 19% | 0% 0% 0% | |||||||
| 20% | 25% | 21% | ||||||
| 17% 25% 33% | ||||||||
| 1022 mb | 1022 mb | 1023 mb | 1023 mb | 1022 mb | 1021 mb | 1021 mb | 1021 mb | |
Khan Shaykhun Past weather on 04th April
2mph = 0.9 m/sec
3mph = 1.3 m/sec
4mph = 1.8 m/sec
3 to 4 Minutes from Crater to Residences
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/syria/damascus
April 2017 — Sun in Damascus
| Month: | ||||||||||||
| 2017 Apr | Sunrise/Sunset Sunrise Sunset | Length | Daylength Difference | Astronomical Twilight Start End | Nautical Twilight Start End | Civil Twilight Start End | Solar Noon Time Mil. mi | |||||
| 1 | 6:22 am t (84°) | 6:55 pm t (276°) | 12:32:44 | +2:03 | 4:58 am | 8:19 pm | 5:28 am | 7:49 pm | 5:57 am | 7:20 pm | 12:38 pm (61.2°) | 92.896 |
| 2 | 6:21 am t (83°) | 6:55 pm t (277°) | 12:34:48 | +2:03 | 4:56 am | 8:20 pm | 5:26 am | 7:50 pm | 5:56 am | 7:21 pm | 12:38 pm (61.6°) | 92.922 |
| 3 | 6:19 am t (83°) | 6:56 pm t (277°) | 12:36:51 | +2:03 | 4:55 am | 8:21 pm | 5:25 am | 7:51 pm | 5:54 am | 7:21 pm | 12:37 pm (61.9°) | 92.948 |
| 4 | 6:18 am t (83°) | 6:57 pm t (278°) | 12:38:54 | +2:03 | 4:53 am | 8:22 pm | 5:23 am | 7:52 pm | 5:53 am | 7:22 pm | 12:37 pm (62.3°) | 92.974 |
| 5 | 6:17 am t (82°) | 6:58 pm t (278°) | 12:40:58 | +2:03 | 4:52 am | 8:23 pm | 5:22 am | 7:53 pm | 5:52 am | 7:23 pm | 12:37 pm (62.7°) | 93.000 |
| 6 | 6:15 am t (82°) | 6:58 pm t (279°) | 12:43:00 | +2:02 | 4:50 am | 8:24 pm | 5:21 am | 7:53 pm | 5:50 am | 7:24 pm | 12:37 pm (63.1°) | 93.026 |
| 7 | 6:14 am t (81°) | 6:59 pm t (279°) | 12:45:02 | +2:02 | 4:49 am | 8:25 pm | 5:19 am | 7:54 pm | 5:49 am | 7:24 pm | 12:36 pm (63.5°) | 93.052 |
| 8 | 6:13 am t (81°) | 7:00 pm t (279°) | 12:47:04 | +2:01 | 4:47 am | 8:26 pm | 5:18 am | 7:55 pm | 5:48 am | 7:25 pm | 12:36 pm (63.8°) | 93.079 |
| 9 | 6:12 am t (80°) | 7:01 pm t (280°) | 12:49:05 | +2:01 | 4:46 am | 8:27 pm | 5:16 am | 7:56 pm | 5:46 am | 7:26 pm | 12:36 pm (64.2°) | 93.105 |
| 10 | 6:10 am t (80°) | 7:01 pm t (280°) | 12:51:07 | +2:01 | 4:44 am | 8:28 pm | 5:15 am | 7:57 pm | 5:45 am | 7:27 pm | 12:36 pm (64.6°) | 93.131 |
| 11 | 6:09 am t (79°) | 7:02 pm t (281°) | 12:53:07 | +2:00 | 4:43 am | 8:29 pm | 5:14 am | 7:58 pm | 5:44 am | 7:28 pm | 12:35 pm (64.9°) | 93.158 |
| 12 | 6:08 am t (79°) | 7:03 pm t (281°) | 12:55:07 | +2:00 | 4:41 am | 8:29 pm | 5:12 am | 7:58 pm | 5:42 am | 7:28 pm | 12:35 pm (65.3°) | 93.184 |
| 13 | 6:06 am t (79°) | 7:04 pm t (282°) | 12:57:07 | +1:59 | 4:40 am | 8:30 pm | 5:11 am | 7:59 pm | 5:41 am | 7:29 pm | 12:35 pm (65.7°) | 93.210 |
| 14 | 6:05 am t (78°) | 7:04 pm t (282°) | 12:59:06 | +1:59 | 4:38 am | 8:31 pm | 5:10 am | 8:00 pm | 5:40 am | 7:30 pm | 12:34 pm (66.0°) | 93.237 |
| 15 | 6:04 am t (78°) | 7:05 pm t (283°) | 13:01:05 | +1:58 | 4:37 am | 8:32 pm | 5:08 am | 8:01 pm | 5:38 am | 7:31 pm | 12:34 pm (66.4°) | 93.263 |
| 16 | 6:03 am t (77°) | 7:06 pm t (283°) | 13:03:03 | +1:58 | 4:35 am | 8:33 pm | 5:07 am | 8:02 pm | 5:37 am | 7:31 pm | 12:34 pm (66.7°) | 93.290 |
| 17 | 6:02 am t (77°) | 7:07 pm t (283°) | 13:05:01 | +1:57 | 4:34 am | 8:34 pm | 5:05 am | 8:03 pm | 5:36 am | 7:32 pm | 12:34 pm (67.1°) | 93.316 |
| 18 | 6:00 am t (76°) | 7:07 pm t (284°) | 13:06:58 | +1:56 | 4:33 am | 8:35 pm | 5:04 am | 8:04 pm | 5:35 am | 7:33 pm | 12:34 pm (67.4°) | 93.343 |
| 19 | 5:59 am t (76°) | 7:08 pm t (284°) | 13:08:54 | +1:56 | 4:31 am | 8:36 pm | 5:03 am | 8:05 pm | 5:33 am | 7:34 pm | 12:33 pm (67.8°) | 93.369 |
| 20 | 5:58 am t (76°) | 7:09 pm t (285°) | 13:10:50 | +1:55 | 4:30 am | 8:37 pm | 5:01 am | 8:05 pm | 5:32 am | 7:35 pm | 12:33 pm (68.1°) | 93.395 |
| 21 | 5:57 am t (75°) | 7:10 pm t (285°) | 13:12:44 | +1:54 | 4:28 am | 8:38 pm | 5:00 am | 8:06 pm | 5:31 am | 7:36 pm | 12:33 pm (68.5°) | 93.421 |
| 22 | 5:56 am t (75°) | 7:10 pm t (286°) | 13:14:39 | +1:54 | 4:27 am | 8:39 pm | 4:59 am | 8:07 pm | 5:30 am | 7:36 pm | 12:33 pm (68.8°) | 93.447 |
| 23 | 5:55 am t (74°) | 7:11 pm t (286°) | 13:16:32 | +1:53 | 4:25 am | 8:41 pm | 4:58 am | 8:08 pm | 5:29 am | 7:37 pm | 12:33 pm (69.1°) | 93.472 |
| 24 | 5:53 am t (74°) | 7:12 pm t (286°) | 13:18:25 | +1:52 | 4:24 am | 8:42 pm | 4:56 am | 8:09 pm | 5:27 am | 7:38 pm | 12:32 pm (69.5°) | 93.498 |
| 25 | 5:52 am t (74°) | 7:13 pm t (287°) | 13:20:17 | +1:52 | 4:23 am | 8:43 pm | 4:55 am | 8:10 pm | 5:26 am | 7:39 pm | 12:32 pm (69.8°) | 93.523 |
| 26 | 5:51 am t (73°) | 7:13 pm t (287°) | 13:22:08 | +1:51 | 4:21 am | 8:44 pm | 4:54 am | 8:11 pm | 5:25 am | 7:40 pm | 12:32 pm (70.1°) | 93.547 |
| 27 | 5:50 am t (73°) | 7:14 pm t (287°) | 13:23:58 | +1:50 | 4:20 am | 8:45 pm | 4:53 am | 8:12 pm | 5:24 am | 7:40 pm | 12:32 pm (70.4°) | 93.572 |
| 28 | 5:49 am t (72°) | 7:15 pm t (288°) | 13:25:48 | +1:49 | 4:19 am | 8:46 pm | 4:51 am | 8:13 pm | 5:23 am | 7:41 pm | 12:32 pm (70.8°) | 93.596 |
| 29 | 5:48 am t (72°) | 7:16 pm t (288°) | 13:27:36 | +1:48 | 4:17 am | 8:47 pm | 4:50 am | 8:14 pm | 5:22 am | 7:42 pm | 12:32 pm (71.1°) | 93.619 |
| 30 | 5:47 am t (72°) | 7:16 pm t (289°) | 13:29:23 | +1:47 | 4:16 am | 8:48 pm | 4:49 am | 8:15 pm | 5:21 am | 7:43 pm | 12:31 pm (71.4°) | 93.643 |
* All times are local time for Damascus. Time is adjusted for DST when applicable. Dates are based on the Gregorian calendar. Today is highlighted.
Time Determined by Planetary Analysis
Sunrise ~ 6:25 AM
Sunset ~ 6:56 PM
Postscript: Here is the .pdf version, with the best layout:
In a cover letter to his report, Dr. Postol also sent us the following Summary of Findings:
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. Video data of suffocating and dead victims lying on the ground shows a different location from the predicted sarin dispersal site if it had been correctly identified by the White House.
The conclusion is that the nerve agent attack described in the White House Intelligence Report 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.
The findings of this expanded analysis can serve two important purposes:
- It shows exactly what needs to be determined in an international investigation of this alleged atrocity.
In particular, if an international investigation can determine where casualties from the nerve agent attack lived, it will confirm that the findings reported by the White House Report are incompatible with its own cited data.
- It also establishes that the White House Report did not utilize simple and widely agreed upon intelligence analysis procedures to determine its conclusions.
This raises troubling questions about how the US political and military leadership determined that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged attack. It is particularly of concern that the White House Report presented itself as a report with “high confidence” findings and that numerous high-level officials in the US government have confirmed their belief that the report was correct and executed to a standard of high confidence.
