Thread by @MichaKobs

Eliot Higgins - the offical truth maker in a post-truth world - distrusts the leaked OPCW paper of the enineering sub-group. First, he want's to know the measurments used in the paper. I think I know why but let's give it a try.

Let's keep in mind that Eliot Higgins never questioned the Forensic Architecture model, even if a yellow cylinder through their hole would have first destroyed the box above the window and then inevitably would have ended up in the chest of drawers. A shaft (red) was forgotten.

The official measured values were published in the FFM/OPCW final report, even if it is not clear where and how exactly they were measured. Just below the picture of a floating body you can read that the crater is 166 x 105cm and the cylinder 140 x 35cm.

The report does not mention that the cylinder without valve is 140cm long and it does not mention the total size of that bomb in the slipped harness. Altogether the bomb measures 185/205cm without/with slipped harness as found in the bed. So, it's a lot larger than FFM/OPCW says.

It's far more difficult to get an idea of the true shape and size of the crater and I think that's the real problem of Eliot Higgins. So, how can we know, when there are not enough available videos to feed some software? We can do it by hand.

Once done, the result fits quite well the different camera perspectives. So, all we need to do is scaling that hole for the FFM measurement.

For the sake of simplicity I use a grid of 10cm distance.

Before taking the next step, we have to realize that the FFM/OPCW chose a very distorted image, which they apparently took to rob the last one of his feelings for the relations. So we have to at least rotate the image upright to be able to work with it.

Using an extremely short focal length of 16mm even this image fits the hole we created. But does the cylinder fit???

It looks like... kind of... could be... right?

It's getting close, but...
Thanks to the extreme short focal lenght it still looks like it could fit somehow, but we see from the front under the cylinder and the impression is deceptive.

The rear end of the cylinder and the fins are already in the wall.

If the harness had already slipped before the alleged impact, then it looks even worse.

But what does the leaked OPCW paper of those engineers say?
It says exactly the same. And apparently it takes some additional information into account. The breaking edges of the concrete are slanted.

And what about the cylinder? It measures 140 x 35cm and doesn't fit horizontally.

So, let's say the drawing is correct for all we know
and let's say the image in the FFM/OPCW report is deceptive.
then one thing should be considered as impotant:
before any impact happened the size of the hole was zero!
What's your conclusion, Eliot?

@EliotHiggins @ForensicArchi @OPCW
@PiersRobinson1 @Tim_Hayward_
@nytimes @RTUKproducer