As usual, Bellingcat's wind-shifters are quickly at work explaining to the reader which paragraph best fits the wording of the email. But even if the word "likely" was likely changed to "possible", it seems possible that more was changed in order not to change the likely meaning. 
So it is the same pointless discussion that was already conducted about the Henderson report, which was allegedly not taken into account in order not to blame anyone (on the ground). One just wanted to mention that the cylinders were dropped at low speed from the air.
Now we have the discussion that the cylinders were only "possibly" the source of a chemical that contained reactive chlorine. However, this chemical was used as a weapon.
And now the reader can decide for himself whether this weapon was a bottle of bleach or wood preservatives?
And now the reader can decide for himself whether this weapon was a bottle of bleach or wood preservatives?
Bellingcat's reference for "Point 2.1" is unfortunately wrong. Point 8.6 in the final report is not chemistry-heavy, but heavy of those "witness" testimonies that are clearly proved wrong by point 8.96 in the same report.
Of course, no victim was found with a piece of wet cloth to protect their airways. And the only one alleged witness who told this impossible story is also known.
So probably Bellingcat meant paragraph 8.16 in which the report describes the corrosion. Astonishing is the corrosion itself, as the cylinder and valve in Location 4 were undamaged (after horizontally passing through concrete). This cylinder was allegedly half full after weeks.
Nevertheless, the activist Bilal al-Saleh was able to film a yellow-green lake of gas over a seemingly frozen bed more than 12 hours after the alleged 16:00 attack. And the most amazing thing about this shot was the frosted valve. Only the outlet-cap was strangely not frozen.
So it is no wonder that in the surroundings of the cylinder the metal corroded and even the wood under the cylinder allegedly had the highest concentration of those chlorinated organic substances. Bilal at the latest had made sure of this.
Point 3 of the new Bellingcat piece is a repetition of the first point, likely/possibly to avoid having to address the essential points of the email like concentrations of 1-2ppb, reports of toxicologists and so on.
Point 4 is one of the essential points and the criticism of the email is not the word "high" but the concealment of the actual concentration (except for Bilal's frozen bed, which is useless as a sample).
So, how "high" was the concentration at ground floor at Location 2?
So, how "high" was the concentration at ground floor at Location 2?
Also under point 5, Bellingcat distracts from the main point of criticism. The final report contains a long description of the symptoms, but does not mention a word about the inconsistency with the expected symptoms of chlorine poisoning.
Point 6 is the pure insistence of the untenable nonsense, which was allegedly spun by 3 external ballistics teams in order not to have to fall back on the analysis of OPCW's own experts.
Nobody knows who these external teams were, but their graphics show undeformable cylinders without valves or fins in perfect vertical alignment in the final state of a "simulation"!
No matematic/physical simulation can bring about such nonsense.
No matematic/physical simulation can bring about such nonsense.
These experts claim that the hole in the balcony is consistent with the damage from the impact of such a cylinder. However, they were not able to reproduce a nearly round crater of twice the diameter of the cylinder.
Instead the hole 5m away looks like a twin. No explanation.
Instead the hole 5m away looks like a twin. No explanation.
And anyone who only knows a little bit about physics can easily calculate that the report disproves itself in relation to Location 4. This cylinder makes a 35cm deep hole, but can only jump 25cm high. How is it supposed to reach the bed 2m away?
To put it briefly, no, dear Bellingcats, this report contains nothing of the expert knowledge of 3 independent teams. It's just lazy magic with colorful pictures.
(Did you do that, Bellingcat? With the help of Forensic Architecture maybe?) However, your hole was too small anyway.
(Did you do that, Bellingcat? With the help of Forensic Architecture maybe?) However, your hole was too small anyway.
While Bellingcat correctly states that there appears to have been a revision of the "redacted report", the change from "likely" is by no means significant as the original message was retained. If Bellingcat had been right, there would probably have been no reason to go public.
