Thread by @Qoppa999

#OPCWScandal

Details of the findings of the suppressed Engineering Assessment explained by @ClimateAudit - basically confirming all doubts concerning the two yellow cylinders arising from analysis of the visual evidence:

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1127926031661318144

I'll confine myself to a key point: how on earth could the object that created the hole with such force as to smash apart the metal rebars end up sitting on top of the hole?

There is no attempt to explain this seeming physical impossibility in the official OPCW report!
#OPCWScandal

The Engineering Assessment positively rules this out:
"the observed appearance of the cylinder and the rebar were not consistent"!

The only response so far came, predictably, from @ScottLucas_EA - with an equally predictably ludicrous attempt at damage limitation by trying to somehow invent a "reason" why OPCW might have "rejected" the Engineering Assessment, and so to explain away the #OPCWScandal!

Not only is @ScottLucas_EA's response based on an insufficient grasp of the problems (details ->

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1128316882539483137

), he fails to understand the main problem is OPCW's formal procedure: if there are possible objections or alternatives to the leaked Engineering Assessment,
>>

> these need to be discussed openly and transparently in the official OPCW report:
this is what it is there for!

Suppressing the Engineering Assessment - without addressing, let alone solving problems - was due to political pressure to deliver the desired results.
#OPCWScandal

Confirmation about what must have caused the crater (picture above) by someone who works as an accident investigator:

https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat/status/1130209210279616513

The same conclusion as in the Engineering Assessment: "The cratering on both sides indicates an explosive."

--> "If a projectile did not penetrate, there may be a small hole inside, surrounded by fractures, but not a large inverted crater."

A former OPCW official had the same basic doubts about the two cylinders as examined in the Engineering Assessment (but not sufficiently addressed in official OPCW report), - as reported by @James__Harkin in his Douma article:

theintercept.com/2019/02/09/dou…

And here comes an excellent analysis by @CL4Syr:

why the Engineering Assessment is right in their damage assessment (location 2, hole in balcony), and the official OPCW report wrong!

libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/05/douma-…

The OPCW FFM explicitly argue against the assumption made by Henderson that the crater was created by an explosive device: "this hypothesis is unlikely given the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristic of an explosion" (OPCW report, Annex 6, § 8, p. 58):

And here, OPCW is plainly wrong: we do see traces both of secondary fragmentation on the walls below the crater (probably by concrete pieces, see picture above 👆) and of primary fragmentation (most likely by metal fragments from mortar) on the walls of the balcony 👇

Theodore Postol weighs in and finds the Engineering Assessment wholly convincing, referring specifically to the smashed rebars (! 😊):

accuracy.org/release/postol…

Postol also comments on the comparably low quality of the OPCW Khan Sheikhoun report ("made by technically illiterate individuals").
And finds it scandalous that the Engineering Assessment was excluded from the official report.
#OPCWScandal

Note that Postol has changed his opinion: when consulted by @James__Harkin for his Intercept piece, he concurred with the "analysis" by Higgins and Forensic Architecture.

(Such is the power of misleading presentation based on cherry-picked evidence!)
theintercept.com/2019/02/09/dou…