,
25 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
In my opinion, the March 1 2019 OPCW Report opcw.org/sites/default/… on Douma chemical incident was deceptive to the point of being fraudulent. In addition to withholding astonishing exculpatory information of Engineering Report, they failed to disclose drop altitudes implicated
2/ in "low speed" impact scenario at apartment building in which the dead bodies were located (Location 2). Altitudes corresponding to their "low speed" scenario (30 m/s; 50 m/s) are 50 to 150 meters, far below the 2000 meter operating altitude of Syrian helicopters. Had OPCW 
3/ disclosed this information, it would have undermined theory that Douma cylinder had been dropped from Syrian helicopter, as claimed by US government, New York Times and many others. This omission, together with withholding of information in Engineering Report, raises serious
4/ questions about integrity of the OPCW process as well as the integrity and/or competence of the US-UK intelligence assessments used to justify US bombing of Syria in April 2018. US intel appears to have been deceived by AlQaeda-sympathizing jihadis, a continuing concern.
5/ in this thread, I'll show how the "low speed" scenario presented by OPCW necessarily implies very low drop altitudes that are far below Syrian helicopter operating altitudes. There are other important issues which discredit OPCW report e.g. rebar.
6/ first problem for OPCW was explaining how cylinder dropped from helicopter created crater on balcony roof WITHOUT penetrating. Below are screenshots from earliest video (later images shown by OPCW). This scene probably seemed logical to stagers, but had problems.
7/ OPCW reported, apparently with straight face, that cylinder "hit[] the concrete floor of the balcony causing a hole in it, but without sufficient energy to fall through it". In other words, the cylinder paused in mid-air, pirouetted and then flopped onto its side. Laughable.
8/ the Engineering Sub-Team had done comprehensive set of simulations of cylinder impact from standard operating altitude of 2000 m down to implausibly low 500 m and, in all cases, determined that cylinder crashed through the roof without being stopped. Not considered by stagers
9/ OPCW Report appears to have worked backwards from conclusion that cylinder dropped. They calculated that, if cylinder had impact velocity of 30 m/s, concrete roof would slow to standstill with crater of approximate size. (This doesnt explain failure to fall thru hole.)
10/ figure shows relationship of impact velocity to drop altitude for idealized case of vacuum (blue) and with estimated drag for cylinder (red). I'll document these calculations as appendix to this thread. At velocity below 50 m/s, drag is minor (i.e. mere high school physics).
11/ more later. Off to birthday lunch for my 96-year old mother and siblings.
12/ picking up this thread, the March 1 OPCW Report (FFM Report) simulation doesn't replicate bent and splayed rebar with entrained concrete as observed (see photo on right), one bent clockwise, one counterclockwise. Why? How could non-penetrating cylinder do this? FFM silent.
13/ emeritus MIT professor Postol did consider this information recently accuracy.org/release/postol… and stated that it was diagnostic of an explosion (as previously diagnosed in leaked Engineering Report).
14/ here is the corresponding paragraph of the Engineering Report, attributing the balcony crater and associated rebar deformation to an explosion, presumably from mortar or rocket artillery fire
15/ returning to FFM Report. FFM did NOT show any simulation of damage to cylinder from their very low speed (30 m/s) balcony impact scenario. As Engineering Report stated, rebar essential to cylinder standstill, but no evidence of rebar-cylinder interaction in rebar or cylinder
16/ in an attempt to cooper up the many implausibilities from their attribution of balcony crater to very low speed impact, FFM postulated that cylinder created two craters - first hitting corner of roof above balcony at 50 m/s, with impact slowing it to 30 m/s
17/ the hypothesized 50 m/s velocity of impact with roof above balcony is shown in FFM Figure A.6.6. FFM Report failed to disclose drop altitude associated with 50 m/s impact velocity, presumably because it was also implausible (~125-130 meters) for Syrian helicopter
18/ for some reason, OPCW report didn't show overhead view of crater associated with postulated corner-of-roof impact preceding balcony impact (also producing crater). Here is image from BBC (via Adam Larson libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/05/douma-…)
19/ OPCW: after creating crater on corner of roof above balcony at 50 m/s (note unsnapped wire), cylinder deflected to northwest, continuing near vertical, then made 2nd (balcony) crater at 30 m/s, before pirouetting to expire on balcony while also rupturing heavy rebar
20/ OPCW reported that observed damage on cylinder was consistent with simulated damage to cylinder from 50 m/s impact, slowing to 30 m/s
21/ watch the pea carefully here (I just noticed this): OPCW showed simulated crater from 2nd impact (30 m/s balcony) but simulation of cylinder damage from 1st impact (50 m/s roof corner), but not simulation of first crater or cylinder damage from 2nd impact. Why?
22/ nor does OPCW postulated magic trajectory theory resolve drop altitude problem which was concealed in OPCW Report. 30 m/s and 50 m/s impact velocity points are marked on figure below. Both altitudes (50 meters and 125-140 meters) inconsistent with helicopter altitudes
23/ another important OPCW inconsistency occurs in their rejection of Engineering Report assessment that crater caused by explosive from mortar or rocket fire, not falling cylinder. They cited "absence of primary and secondary fragmentation" "on rooftop terrace and below crater"
24/ however, OPCW denial of "primary and secondary fragmentation" on rooftop terrace is refuted by west wall (not shown by FFM) and even by FFM's own photo of south wall of balcony adjacent to crater on roof corner. Why would OPCW make such obviously untrue statement?
25/ the Engineering Report considered and rejected the two-impact theory presented in OPCW Report. They stated that it was not "consistent with almost complete lack of deformation" on rest of cylinder or subsequent impact creating balcony crater.
