|
2020-02-07 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
|
|
The OPCW's report vs. the New York Times coverage of the Douma
|
Whenever WikiLeaks publishes suppressed information about some geopolitical event, it's useful to go back and look at how our media covered the same event. It's a good way to learn how our media create new "truths", especially when it comes to war.
This WL release from October last year proved as educational as any:
"Engineering Assessment of Two Cylinders Observed at the Douma incident - Executive Summary":
https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/document/20190227-Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident/
Here's how the New York Times covered the same event:
NYT on April 24 2018: "Our investigation found that the Syrian government dropped a chlorine bomb"
NYT on April 25 2018: "Douma Chemical Attack: How Assad Gassed his own people"
https://web.archive.org/web/20190302114708/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/24/world/middleeast/douma-syria-chemical-attack-augmented-reality-ar-ul.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190618164001/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/25/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-douma.html
Originals:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/24/world/middleeast/douma-syria-chemical-attack-augmented-reality-ar-ul.html
Video is only available at original url:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/25/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-douma.html
The NYT based their conclusion on a simple premise: If the gas-cylinders were dropped from the sky, Assad is guilty, because no one else had aircraft in the airspace above Douma that day.
In their own words:
Because the Syrian military controls the airspace over Douma, it would be almost impossible for the attack to have been staged by opposition fighters who do not have aircraft.
[where "opposition fighters" is code for "jihadists we like". Otherwise they'd be "terrorists."]
The NYT goes on to list three pieces of physical evidence which they claim prove the gas-cylinders were dropped from an aircraft.
The 3 pieces of evidence, as listed by the NYT:
1) Indentation near the nose of the bomb
2) Lattice imprint on the bomb
3) Bomb's rigging found in the debris
As it turns out, the OPCW report directly addresses all 3 items. Here's what the OPCW report says regarding each claim:
NYT claim #1: indentation near the nose [is evidence that the bomb was dropped from an aircraft]
OPCW findings:
Although steel rebar was visible in [] the observed concrete crater, no traces of interaction of the cylinder with the steel rebar were observed on the cylinder.
.
In simulations, steel rebar clearly affected the deformation of the vessel. Indeed, pronounced indents of the steel rebar were obtained.
.
Simulation results indicated that the assumed drop heights, even the lowest one of 500m, were too high to [] reproduce the observed impact event.
Ie. simulations showed that a cylinder of that weight would have crashed through the concrete slab, which it didn't. The OPCW concluded that:
All the elements listed above point to the conclusion that the alleged impact event leading to observed vessel deformation and concrete damage were not compatible.
NYT Claim #2: Lattice imprint on the bomb is evidence that the bomb was dropped from an aircraft.
OPCW findings:
a "criss-cross" pattern was observed on the paintwork of the cylinder body, which was attributed by some observers [like the NYT] as an indication of the cylinder falling through the wire mesh. The explanation however is inconsistent with the vertical, or near vertical angle of incidence of the cylinder
The damage on the cylinder's nose "was caused by an impact under an angle of 20 deg," meaning the cylinder fell almost vertically.
However, the "criss-cross" pattern was made by a horizontal impact, which means it was not formed at the impact site.
NYT claim #3: Bomb's rigging found in the debris is evidence that the bomb was dropped from an aircraft.
OPCW findings:
The presence [] of mangled remains of mild steel framework and fins, and a rather flat truncated conical metal object , were not
consistent with the appearance of the cylinder. Examination of the cylinder did not indicate that it had been fitted with these, nor did it show signs of them having been stripped from the cylinder as a result of impact.
The OPCW overall conclusion [pg 8]:
The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders and the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft.
.
In summary, [] there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.
Which directly contradicts the NYT.
Thank you WikiLeaks, for once again exposing the deceptive practices of our "most respected" names in news.
The findings above are all related to the gas-cylinder found on the upper floor balcony. There was a 2nd gas-cylinder, found in a bedroom. The NYT makes no claims regarding this 2nd cylinder.
I suppose we'll never know why they ignored it. We can only speculate that it was because the OPCW found
it was not possible to establish a set of circumstances where the post-deformation cylinder [in the bedroom] could fit through the crater with the valve still intact, and the fins deformed in the manner observed.
Comically, sketches on page 13 of the OPCW report show that the bomb's tail fins were wider than the hole in the ceiling.
I recommend reading the OPCW report in full. It lists many other findings that don't align with the pre-cooked version our media have hammered home since 2018.
Commentary:
The NYT's coverage of Douma makes it clear the Judith Miller hoax was not a one-off event. It happened by design, and today there are other Judith Millers in place, ready to inject pro-war bullshit into our news-stream at the bidding of their security-state handlers.
This is how our media is meant to work, and we can be sure the new Judith Millers will re-activate whenever a "crisis initiation" campaign gets under way. 
|
Posted by Herb McCoy 2020-02-07 00:00||
||
Front Page|| [18 views ]
Top
|
|
Posted by trailing wife 2020-02-07 21:03||
2020-02-07 21:03||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Frank G 2020-02-07 21:39||
2020-02-07 21:39||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Besoeker 2020-02-07 21:50||
2020-02-07 21:50||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by trailing wife 2020-02-07 23:19||
2020-02-07 23:19||
Front Page
Top
|
|
20:11 Omomomble Glusoter5572
19:12 SteveS
18:02 swksvolFF
17:55 swksvolFF
17:45 Grom the Reflective
16:31 jpal
16:02 Beldar+Uneter3543
16:01 M. Murcek
15:59 Super Hose
15:43 Procopius2k
15:42 Procopius2k
15:39 49 Pan
15:37 M. Murcek
15:36 M. Murcek
15:28 Dale
15:28 Grom the Reflective
15:27 Dale
15:26 M. Murcek
15:23 Dale
15:15 Beldar+Uneter3543
15:02 Besoeker
15:00 Uleremp and Company7042
14:59 NoMoreBS
14:54 Uleremp and Company7042
|
