MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”

[Will Wiley]

MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”

One of the world’s leading rocket scientists, national security advisor and MIT Professor Theodore Postol, who has won awards for debunking claims about missile defense systems and has been a scientific adviser to the US Chief of Naval Operations, says today in a nine-page report that a four-page report released by the Trump administration yesterday intended to blame the recent chemical attack in Syria on the Syrian government “does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack”.

Addendum to the report


Assessment of the White House Report

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

I stand by ready to supply the country with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What i can say for sure herein is that what the country is being told by the White House cannot be true.

 

[Harry Bosch]

MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”



Addendum to the report


Assessment of the White House Report

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

I stand by ready to supply the counrty with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What i can say fior sure herein is that what the country is being told by the White House cannot be true.

Agreed. I've come to the conclusion that it was secret cabal of Luxumbergian Nationals with the intent of eventually colonizing Syria. Assad is way too nice of a guy to have done such a dastardly deed.

 

[untermensche]

Not enough Americans care who did it for it to matter.

We stood up for what is right.

You blow people up.

You don't gas them.

 

[Deepak]

I always thought it was Luxembourgeois

 

[ZiprHead]

It constantly amazes me how people who do not have access to data, no matter their credentials, are asked to be believed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Professor Emeritus

When an old scientist says something is impossible they're almost always wrong.

 

[barbos]

Professor Emeritus

When an old scientist says something is impossible they're almost always wrong.

He does not say it's impossible, he says report is BS.

 

[Will Wiley]

It constantly amazes me how people who do not have access to data, no matter their credentials, are asked to be believed.

What's truly amazing is that people who insisted they didn't like Trump and that he was the worlds greatest liar now insist that he tells the truth and is to be believed, when he has no evidence and is contradicted by those who would know

 

[barbos]

It constantly amazes me how people who do not have access to data, no matter their credentials, are asked to be believed.

Yes he asks to be believed when he says "Believe me, evidence which was released is bullshit"

 

[Underseer]

I'll be honest, I don't know what to make of any of this.

Not only do I not trust Trump in his claims of a chemical attack by Syria, I don't trust the similar claims made by the Obama administration either.

On the other hand, Assad has just as much motive to be dishonest about this, and Putin has the resources to make the lies credible.

All I know for certain is that I don't trust any of these motherfuckers.

 

[Will Wiley]

I'll be honest, I don't know what to make of any of this.

Not only do I not trust Trump in his claims of a chemical attack by Syria, I don't trust the similar claims made by the Obama administration either.

On the other hand, Assad has just as much motive to be dishonest about this, and Putin has the resources to make the lies credible.

All I know for certain is that I don't trust any of these motherfuckers.

I can understand that you dont trust Trump Putin Assad...etc....
Why not just trust the evidence. This report by an actual rocket scientist looks at the evidence that was in the white house report. What do you think of it?

What is stopping you from looking at the actual evidence the White House used and seeing that it doesn't show that sarin was dropped from a plane?

This report BTW has nothing to do with Putin or Assad, but it does show the report from the Trump whitehouse to be wrong

 

[Jayjay]

If it's in the esteemed "Washington's Blog" I guess it must be true?

I wonder, why is none of this ever reported by any reputable news sources, rather than blogs and conspiracy theorist crackpot sites? Could it be because it's bullshit? And who's Larry?

 

[Will Wiley]

If it's in the esteemed "Washington's Blog" I guess it must be true?

I wonder, why is none of this ever reported by any reputable news sources, rather than blogs and conspiracy theorist crackpot sites? Could it be because it's bullshit? And who's Larry?

If it were bullshit then you would be arguing about the facts and the evidence. You're not stupid, you show yourself to be quite capable of examining evidence and making rational arguments, when you can.

If you believe it is bullshit then why is it bullshit?
Are the facts wrong?
Are the arguments illogical?

Here is the report. It has no connection to the Washington Blog, but was merely reported there.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

 

[Jayjay]

If it's in the esteemed "Washington's Blog" I guess it must be true?

I wonder, why is none of this ever reported by any reputable news sources, rather than blogs and conspiracy theorist crackpot sites? Could it be because it's bullshit? And who's Larry?

If it were bullshit then you would be arguing about the facts and the evidence. You're not stupid, you show yourself to be quite capable of examining evidence and making rational arguments, when you can.

If you believe it is bullshit then why is it bullshit?
Are the facts wrong?
Are the arguments illogical?

Here is the report. It has no connection to the Washington Blog, but was merely reported there.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

I read the report. But I'm not an expert on munitions, so I have nothing to say about it. But if this was so obvious, there would be more than one person pointing out the flaws and it would be bigger news. If the only sources you can find are conspiracy theorist blogs, I'm not inclined to waste my time. I'll just wait and see where the chips fall.

 

[Will Wiley]

If it were bullshit then you would be arguing about the facts and the evidence. You're not stupid, you show yourself to be quite capable of examining evidence and making rational arguments, when you can.

If you believe it is bullshit then why is it bullshit?
Are the facts wrong?
Are the arguments illogical?

Here is the report. It has no connection to the Washington Blog, but was merely reported there.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

I read the report. But I'm not an expert on munitions, so I have nothing to say about it.

For fucks sake Jayjay do you need to be an expert to comment on this from the addendum?

This addendum provides data that unambiguously shows that the assumption in the WHR that there was no tampering with the alleged site of the sarin release is not correct. This egregious error raises questions about every other claim in the WHR.

As noted in the main body of my earlier report, the assumption in WHR that the site of the alleged sarin release had not been tampered with was totally unjustified and no competent intelligence analyst would have agreed that this assumption was valid. The implication of this observation is clear – the WHR was not reviewed and released by any competent intelligence expert unless they were motivated by factors other than concerns about the accuracy of the report

I posted all the links ,including this addendum in the OP, yet you call it bullshit and at the same time claim you can't comment because you are not an expert on munitions?

 

[barbos]

I am no expert but why that thing needs an explosive charge to release sarin?
Why not make it fragile and let simply open on impact? Crater does look like there was a serious explosion.
What I see on the picture is consistent with tube with sarin inside placed vertically and and then external charges on the upper end exploded and Sarin simply raptures the tube.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If it were bullshit then you would be arguing about the facts and the evidence. You're not stupid, you show yourself to be quite capable of examining evidence and making rational arguments, when you can.

If you believe it is bullshit then why is it bullshit?
Are the facts wrong?
Are the arguments illogical?

Here is the report. It has no connection to the Washington Blog, but was merely reported there.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

I read the report. But I'm not an expert on munitions, so I have nothing to say about it. But if this was so obvious, there would be more than one person pointing out the flaws and it would be bigger news. If the only sources you can find are conspiracy theorist blogs, I'm not inclined to waste my time. I'll just wait and see where the chips fall.

The crucial key is that the only American expert in missiles thinks the evidence is BS. You can't argue with confirmation bias that strong!

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think the report is pretty skinny on details. In any circumstances​ involving data collection there will be outliers. In find it interesting that Postol says it's so obviously wrong but I haven't seen a lot of ratification from other experts coming to the same conclusion he has. I've also seen quite a bit of explanation that is obviously quite wrong, like Russia (and some others) saying it was a strike on the chemical weapons in storage that caused the chemical explosion. Sarin isn't stored together ready to go for just that reason. It's stored rather like epoxy: you have to combine the separate ingredients s together to activate them. I'm not dead set against a differing possibility as to what haooened, but I haven't seen any real evidence to the contrary that seems convincing.

 

[barbos]

I've also seen quite a bit of explanation that is obviously quite wrong, like Russia (and some others) saying it was a strike on the chemical weapons in storage that caused the chemical explosion. Sarin isn't stored together ready to go for just that reason. It's stored rather like epoxy: you have to combine the separate ingredients s together to activate them. I'm not dead set against a differing possibility as to what haooened, but I haven't seen any real evidence to the contrary that seems convincing.

This particular version was voiced right after the incident when it was not known what kind of poison was used. If we assume Assad is not responsible then this version makes sense for him to suggest.
I think it's possible that US bulshitting, I mean they have real evidence but they don't want to show it for some reasons, so they use publicly available data to convince the said public.

 

[Jayjay]

I read the report. But I'm not an expert on munitions, so I have nothing to say about it.

For fucks sake Jayjay do you need to be an expert to comment on this from the addendum?

This addendum provides data that unambiguously shows that the assumption in the WHR that there was no tampering with the alleged site of the sarin release is not correct. This egregious error raises questions about every other claim in the WHR.

As noted in the main body of my earlier report, the assumption in WHR that the site of the alleged sarin release had not been tampered with was totally unjustified and no competent intelligence analyst would have agreed that this assumption was valid. The implication of this observation is clear – the WHR was not reviewed and released by any competent intelligence expert unless they were motivated by factors other than concerns about the accuracy of the report

I posted all the links ,including this addendum in the OP, yet you call it bullshit and at the same time claim you can't comment because you are not an expert on munitions?

The white house report (which I only read as appendix to docment you posted, not the original source) did not explicitly say that the site was not tampered with or touched. All it says was that it was highly implausible that all of the evidence for the attack would have been fabricated due to the difficulty of coordinating such a forgery. Ok, sure, there were some guys poking around the hole in inadequate masks. That does not say anything about the overall conclusion, all it shows is that people may have touched about the crater later when the sarin gas had dissipated.

That's not to say Postol is wrong, but the only thing that really could be a "smoking gun" in his reporting is that the munition was blown up on the ground, rather than dropped from a plane. That's his area of experitise and it sounds plausible to a layman. However there are always competing theories. Sure you can look at the piece of metal in the crater and say that "okay it looks like a broken toothpaste tube" but that does not conclusively prove that a similar device dropped from a plane would not leave the same kind of result. That's where being a munitions expert (or at least getting a second opinion from one) comes in. I can't draw a conclusion after hearing just one side of the analysis.