News Syria Chemical Warfare: Analysis & Probabilities

[epenguin]

At this scientific site it should be possible to get some better informed considerations than I am finding elsewhere about the probabilities concerning what has happened in Syria.

There appears little doubt that a population has suffered an attack involving probably sarin, and I think mustard gas has been mentioned.

But then there have been doubts, indeed polemics, about who did the attack. The published US Government assessment .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21

does not identify a smoking gun. The forthcoming UN inspectors' report is not expected to try and identify the attacker. But it may contain indications from which we could reason out probabilities.

In all the polemics I have seen so far (outside this site) the opinion of everyone appears determined by their political orientation and loyalties and what they want to be true, what they would like, or would best suit them, to be true. I would like to hear something more fact and knowledge-based here.

For me a crucial part would be this paragraph:

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.


Mixing? I know that modern chemical weapons are designed to be binary, i.e. the toxic agent is not carried about as such, but created by mixing precursors. Maybe they are mixed when needed or soon before? That implies well trained and officered troops, and implicates the regular army surely? Or regular units that have switched sides. However the document just says 'mixing' without explanation. As if everyone knew about it. Any comments?

Then I read in Wikipedia that, I don't know how usually, the mixing takes place inside the projectile shell. That implies that it is the side which has artillery, pretty much only the government side and it has certainly used it a lot.

The idea of binary weapons is safer storage. Can we infer that this has not been an accident? Or could the estimated 1,400 deaths from accidental shelling of storage facility and is just a fraction as dreadful as it cluld hve been with more primitive weapons?

 

[lisab]

Just a note - we already have a thread that is focused on the political side of the Syrian conflict here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=688219

If this thread leans more toward the science behind chemical weapons, then it makes sense to keep it separate. So if you have a political comment please post it in the other thread.

Thanks.

 

[russ_watters]

It is a difficult question to answer. The white house brief basically tells us it has evidence and roughly describes it, but doesn't show it to us. Other countries' official statements look similar. So it is largely a question of who you believe (Russia and Syria or the entire Western world).

What you CAN get in the public domain though are things like location, size/scale, who was targeted, and official responses.

 

[edward]

Here is an interesting article from the Scientific American.

Fragments of the weapons will be on site in the same places where inspectors will be digging up soil samples for evidence of sarin, he says. The materials composing the rockets could differ depending on who made them, thereby pointing a finger at who deployed them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-made-the-sarin

 

[chemisttree]

Sarin is usually employed as a binary system. Methylphosphonyl difluoride plus isopropyl alcohol. Not so sophisticated that a college student couldn't pull it off given the ingredients. It doesn't require sophisticated artillery although both sides are known to have delivery systems that work. The rebel side pulled it off last May.

What if they find a stabilizer like isopropylamine or pyridine in their samples? What if they find diisopropyl methylphosphonate (DIMP) or methylphosphonyl difluoride (DP)? Or diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC)? It means nothing unless you think that the rebels are so clueless as to not know how to research what is well-known about Sarin on the internet! You think the rebels don't have chemists on their side? Do they not have wealthy and chemically savvy supporters around the world like Saudi Arabia and the UAE? The presence or absence of these compounds tells us absolutely nothing as to their source anyway. Without samples of the stockpile or of samples freshly prepared by Syrian Government troops, we can say nothing at all about the source. Does the Syrian Government use stabilizers or are the munitions freshly prepared and used immediately without stabilizers? What are their methods and what is the purity of the materials the Government uses? If the Government uses stabilizers, what stabilizer do they use from the world of potential candidates? Do the Syrians have their own particular recipes that they and they alone utilize?

No answers are known for any of these questions. In fact, the Syrian Government only today even admitted that they even have Sarin in their inventory! And we should remember that last May's Sarin attack was attributed to the rebels.

I would be very suspicious of statements like, "Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin." Such a statement boggles the mind! Near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus? Are there signs? Do the chemical weapons personnel wear easily identifiable uniforms that everyone is aware of? This ain't the way it happens, folks!

"Near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons!" That's some hilarious propaganda from our White House!

On the ground in Syria comes this report from Syrian activists.

Only a secret group of regime insiders is aware of the location of the regime’s chemical weapons. “Even the people in the [Syrian government] ministries don’t know who these people are or where the chemicals are mixed,” said Sami Ibrahim, a Damascus-based spokesman for the Syrian Network for Human Rights.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ds-brother-likely-blame-chemical-we/?page=all

It's from the same article that quotes our White House propaganda.

So how does the Obama regime know so much? This isn't a case of who are going to believe, Us or Them. Look at the totality of what is being reported by all sides and try to determine if we can know anything at all. I think we can never know for sure.

 

[epenguin]

Would this, which came out or at least I was aware of it, since I started the thread, change your, or anyone's, views?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack
http://www.hrw.org/node/118725/

I'd say it answers some of Chemstree's very points.

 

[chemisttree]

I think this report is as close to a smoking gun as we will get without disclosing any classified intelligence to the media. I've seen pictures and Youtube videos of these 330 mm rockets that reportedly have the hallmarks of chemical or liquid fittings in the payload section. The remains of several of these shown in Youtube videos have visual traces of white powder, brown/tan solids, brownish surface staining of the internal components and no apparent residue at all. Perhaps this is a multi-use delivery system believed to be used only by the Syrian forces.

My opinion is that it is likely Syrian forces but the timing of the attack and the presence of UN inspectors nearby have me puzzled as to why the Syrians would do this? The only apparent winners in this scenario are the rebels. And the Syrian Government would be well aware of the down side from this type of attack since they have been under scrutiny lately for just these types of attacks. It smells fishy to me. Just like the putative isopropyl amine stabilizer yet to be found among the residue.

 

[russ_watters]

The only apparent winners in this scenario are the rebels.

The dead ones?

 

[epenguin]

I think this report is as close to a smoking gun as we will get without disclosing any classified intelligence to the media.

Is there any more text that goes with that? (I see mostly images and captions). The lack of it will make it hard for the ordinary person to even understand what is being said, claimed, or inferred.

 

[nsaspook]

Is there any more text that goes with that? (I see mostly images and captions). The lack of it will make it hard for the ordinary person to even understand what is being said, claimed, or inferred.

I think the images and captions explain clearly what we are seeing. An 'ordinary' person who can't understand this won't be helped by more text.

 

[turbo]

While chemical agents/nerve gas, etc kill indiscriminately, they dissipate. Compare this to the use of cluster munitions with bomblets that can maim or kill years after the fact. The use of chemical weapons is reprehensible, but at least little children don't get their feet or legs blown off years later, just by walking across a vacant lot. The people who see a "red line" might want to adjust their goggles a bit.

War sucks and indiscriminate killing sucks even worse.



It would be nice to gain some perspective before citing the use of chemical weapons as a justification for attacking the Assad regime.

 

[mheslep]

According to the Rand study on WMD scenarios http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.appa.pdf, a chemical agent like sarin which has been aerosolized by a professional trained to use it (like a Syrian agent) in major city would kill or injure 50% of the people in an ellipsoid with long axis 1.5 km from the point of release. Anthrax released from a small aircraft over a similar city would kill 125K to 250K people. There is no comparison of these types of attacks to traditional explosive munitions like cluster bombs.

 

[chemisttree]

The http://armscontrolnow.org/2013/09/16/hard-evidence-from-the-un-inspectors-point-to-assads-cw-use/ has been published. Pretty light on the details IMO but certain about who used the CW. I thought the UN report wasn't going to make any conclusions about which side was the source of the CW?

Interesting that so much has been made of the presence of stabilizers indicating a sophisticated user (I don't agree) which would indicate Syrian government use yet none of the tests were positive for stabilizers. The conclusions portion of the report refers to Appendix 7 for further discussion and then? The report says nothing about stabilizers. The only compound that might be remotely related to a stabilizer is hexamethylenetetraamine which is reported in a fair number of the samples. Of course it is also a component of RDX which is HE not CW. There's probably that residue everywhere there have been rocket attacks and artillery shelling so HMTA isn't a smoking gun either way.

Results were apparently based on the direction of fire and the amounts used. Not an airtight case at all, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

The http://armscontrolnow.org/2013/09/16/hard-evidence-from-the-un-inspectors-point-to-assads-cw-use/ has been published. Pretty light on the details IMO but certain about who used the CW. I thought the UN report wasn't going to make any conclusions about which side was the source of the CW?

You didn't link the report, you linked an article about the report. Other articles about the report I've read said that the report didn't say specifically who perpetrated it, but it provided evidence that shows it.

 

[lisab]

You didn't link the report, you linked an article about the report. Other articles about the report I've read said that the report didn't say specifically who perpetrated it, but it provided evidence that shows it.

That's what I heard on NPR, driving home tonight. My guess is, political forces don't allow the investigators to be forthcoming. So they say things like, "...a 140-mm Soviet era rocket capable of delivering Sarin was used in the attack." (That's at 1:10 in http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=223472695&m=223472707)

Pretty damning. Which is no surprise -- if Russia *truly* believed the rebels carried out this attack, why would they propose taking weapons away from Assad ?

 

[chemisttree]

You didn't link the report, you linked an article about the report. Other articles about the report I've read said that the report didn't say specifically who perpetrated it, but it provided evidence that shows it.

There is a hotlink to the pdf of the report within the article. My Kindle automatically downloads it so I cannot easily provide the url for you. The word "report" in the article takes you there.

 

[chemisttree]

That's what I heard on NPR, driving home tonight. My guess is, political forces don't allow the investigators to be forthcoming. So they say things like, "...a 140-mm Soviet era rocket capable of delivering Sarin was used in the attack." (That's at 1:10 in http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=223472695&m=223472707)

Pretty damning. Which is no surprise -- if Russia *truly* believed the rebels carried out this attack, why would they propose taking weapons away from Assad ?

I've been reading/viewing the evidence about the 140mm rockets for several days now including the Human Rights Watch report. They report the presence of spent 140mm rocket motors but none of the payload portions or fragments thereof. The site was uncontrolled and the UN reports that both the site was well traversed by people prior to their arrival and that all of the samples were obviously handled numerous times prior to arrival.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Pretty damning. Which is no surprise -- if Russia *truly* believed the rebels carried out this attack, why would they propose taking weapons away from Assad ?

There could be a couple reasons. One, if they don't then the US is going to attack Assad and things are going to be awkward whether or not he is innocent of the charge. Two, if they do take the weapons away in a transparent way and another attack occurs, they have a strong argument that the rebels are the ones gassing people.

 

[lisab]

There could be a couple reasons. One, if they don't then the US is going to attack Assad and things are going to be awkward whether or not he is innocent of the charge. Two, if they do take the weapons away in a transparent way and another attack occurs, they have a strong argument that the rebels are the ones gassing people.

Perhaps - either or both of those scenarios are possible, if a bit contrived.

It's also possible Assad did not order the attack, but someone in his organization did. And Assad absolutely can't wait to get rid of the stuff, since he has lost control of it. This is IMO, of course.

 

[chemisttree]

There could be a couple reasons. One, if they don't then the US is going to attack Assad and things are going to be awkward whether or not he is innocent of the charge. Two, if they do take the weapons away in a transparent way and another attack occurs, they have a strong argument that the rebels are the ones gassing people.

Or the simplest reason of all. The US will never attack during a negotiation or a protracted appearance of cooperation. I think Putin guessed well that Obama only wanted a way to save face under any circumstance so he and that idiot Kerry provided him one.

 

[lisab]

It's also possible Assad did not order the attack, but someone in his organization did. And Assad absolutely can't wait to get rid of the stuff, since he has lost control of it. This is IMO, of course.

Or the simplest reason of all. The US will never attack during a negotiation or a protracted appearance of cooperation. I think Putin guessed well that Obama only wanted a way to save face under any circumstance so he and that idiot Kerry provided him one.

Simple is surely in the eyes of the beholder. I find my suggestion much, much more likely.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a hotlink to the pdf of the report within the article. My Kindle automatically downloads it so I cannot easily provide the url for you. The word "report" in the article takes you there.

I'm aware. That wasn't my point. You commented that you didn't think the report was supposed to say who perpetrated it and my point was I don't think it did. But no, I didn't read it yet.

 

[Aero51]

Whatever we speculate our vast system of drones as probably already provided an answer. I also read recently about a bombing of a childrens playground with napalm/napalm-like substance. A powder was recovered at the site, pointing to the former. I don't know the chenistry of napalm so I have no idea what it may be.


Either way, bombing a playground is ****ed up.

I don't care what the rules say, that is the only way to describe it.

 

[russ_watters]

Simple is surely in the eyes of the beholder. I find my suggestion much, much more likely.

I don't. I think Assad and Putin are somewhere together, drunk and laughing their as--butts off at how they were able to turn the tables and manipulate Obama into a weaker position instead of the stronger one Obama presented. I know a few pundits are giving Obama props for his show of force forcing them to the negotiating table, but that only works if Obama actually gets something from the negotiations and I think it more likely he'll be giving rather than getting. Already, the deal is breaking down.

Assad has demonstrated that using chemical weapons on your own people puts you in a stronger position in the world community, not a weaker one. It means you can use your chemical weapons to help put down the rebellion, then trade the weapons (or perhaps even just pretend to) for additional assistance from Russia and a promise from the US not to intervene! It is a great deal! Qaddafi is probably sitting next to Satan right now shaking his head that if he had used chemical weapons against his rebellion, he might still be alive.

Other murderous dictators are probably lining up to buy weapons from Russia now, complete with Russia's I-got-your-back guarantee.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm aware. That wasn't my point. You commented that you didn't think the report was supposed to say who perpetrated it and my point was I don't think it did. But no, I didn't read it yet.

Oh, I see. And no, you won't find a statement saying that the Syrian Gov't was the perpetrator but the evidence presented only shows weapon systems known to be used by gov't forces and the direction of fire leading back to gov't-controlled areas. The presence of those stabilizers that would be the smoking gun everyone has been talking about is mentioned for effect but if you dig a little you find the evidence and discussion totally lacking. This was done to point the finger squarely at the Syrian Gov't, thus my comment that it is certain as to the perpetrators.

 

[Office_Shredder]

russ, that only works if you're actually close allies with Russia. Assad is getting away with using chemical weapons for the same reason he's getting away with everything else - because Russia has previously provided them with enough military hardware, and is currently providing them with enough political support, to make going into Syria a dicey proposition. It's not like if Libya gassed its own people Russia would have said "Oh OK we've got your back now" after letting us shoot down their air force indiscriminately before that.

 

[chemisttree]

I don't. I think Assad and Putin are somewhere together, drunk and laughing their as--butts off at how they were able to turn the tables and manipulate Obama into a weaker position instead of the stronger one Obama presented. I know a few pundits are giving Obama props for his show of force forcing them to the negotiating table, but that only works if Obama actually gets something from the negotiations and I think it more likely he'll be giving rather than getting. Already, the deal is breaking down.

Assad has demonstrated that using chemical weapons on your own people puts you in a stronger position in the world community, not a weaker one. It means you can use your chemical weapons to help put down the rebellion, then trade the weapons (or perhaps even just pretend to) for additional assistance from Russia and a promise from the US not to intervene! It is a great deal! Qaddafi is probably sitting next to Satan right now shaking his head that if he had used chemical weapons against his rebellion, he might still be alive.

Other murderous dictators are probably lining up to buy weapons from Russia now, complete with Russia's I-got-your-back guarantee.

+1 The final deal will very likely bear little resemblance to what the idiot Kerry has been demanding.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, that only works if you're actually close allies with Russia. Assad is getting away with using chemical weapons for the same reason he's getting away with everything else - because Russia has previously provided them with enough military hardware, and is currently providing them with enough political support, to make going into Syria a dicey proposition. It's not like if Libya gassed its own people Russia would have said "Oh OK we've got your back now" after letting us shoot down their air force indiscriminately before that.

Qaddafi didn't have prior knowledge of how he should have acted. It is my understanding that for Syria, most of forging a strong alliance with Russia is just a matter of buying a lot of weapons. When Qaddafi threatened a massacre at Benghazi, Russia abstained from vetoing the UNSC resolution for the no fly zone. Perhaps if Qaddafi had bought more weapons, Russia would have vetoed it, thus allowing him to proceed with his massacre.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/russia-libya-arms-idUSL5E7M221H20111102

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html

Based on the articles the value of arms contracts with Libya and Syria were roughly equal

 

[epenguin]

Does this, tracing trajectories of rockets fired at the relevant the time http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/d...in-flight-path that point to HQ of the regime's elite Republican Guard change Chemsttree's or anyone's view of what happened?

 

[Office_Shredder]

penguin, your link got cut off and is literally directing to a location with a ... in the middle of it (in particular, it no longer points to a specific article)

 

[epenguin]

Thank you. Depending where I am coming from I can either see it or not. They surely won't mind me reproducing the article here.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/dispatches-mapping-sarin-flight-pathDispatches: Mapping the Sarin Flight Path
September 17, 2013
Josh Lyons
Related Materials:

Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack
September 10, 2013
Press release

The UN inspectors investigating the chemical weapons attack on two suburbs in Damascus last month weren’t supposed to point the finger at the party responsible for the killings. But even so, the Sellstrom report revealed key details of the attack that strongly suggest the government is to blame, and may even help identify the location from which the Sarin-filled rockets that killed hundreds of people on August 21 were fired.

In appendix 5 of their report, after describing the size and structure of two rocket delivery systems used, they go one step further and actually reveal the direction some of the rockets likely came from. Using standard field investigative techniques examining the debris field and impact area where the rockets struck, the report provides precise azimuths, or angular measurements, that allow us to work out the actual trajectory of the rockets.

“Impact site number 1 (Moadamiya) and impact site number 4 (Ein Tarma),” the inspectors wrote, “provide sufficient evidence to determine, with a sufficient degree of accuracy, the likely trajectory of the projectiles.” They go on to say that 3 of the rockets they inspected had bearings of 34 and 35 degrees for 2 of the rockets that landed in Moadamiya, and 285 degrees for 1 of the rockets that landed in Ein Tarma.

Connecting the dots provided by these numbers allows us to see for ourselves where the rockets were likely launched from and who was responsible.

The two attack locations are located 16 kilometers apart, but when mapping these trajectories, the presumed flight paths of the rockets converge on a well-known military base of the Republican Guard 104th Brigade, situated only a few kilometers north of downtown Damascus and within firing range of the neighborhoods attacked by chemical weapons.

According to declassified reference guides, the 140mm artillery rocket used on impact site number 1 (Moadamiya) has a minimum range of 3.8 kilometers and a maximum range of 9.8 kilometers. The Republican Guard 104th Brigade is approximately 9.5 km from the base. While we don’t know the firing range for the 330mm rocket that hit impact site number 4, the area is only 9.6km away from the base, well within range of most rocket systems.
Click to enlarge map

This isn’t conclusive, given the limited data available to the UN team, but it is highly suggestive and another piece of the puzzle.

While this base will be an early port of call for international teams charged with securing Syria’s chemical weapons under a US-Russian plan to prevent future attacks, it is critical we do not forget about Ghouta’s victims and bring those guilty of this war crime to justice.

We keep saying this because it matters so much: it is vital to hold accountable those who have used chemical weapons in the recent past. The UN Security Council – including Russia and the US – should refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court as part of the upcoming resolution. Only by authorizing an impartial, independent investigation will we ensure justice for the victims in Ghouta.

I have copied the illustrative image from the Times though there is another one in the Human Rights Watch article, I don't know how stable it will be here.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00453/Strikes_453134a.jpg

 

[chemisttree]

Does this, tracing trajectories of rockets fired at the relevant the time http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/d...in-flight-path that point to HQ of the regime's elite Republican Guard change Chemsttree's or anyone's view of what happened?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! The UN report is garbage! Especially the portion describing the trajectories! I leave to you and everyone else who will take the time to critically evaluate the report to draw their own conclusions. If an eighth grader turned this into me, I would have them in the principal's office for falsifying data.

 

[Office_Shredder]

chemisttree, can you point out specifically what's wrong with the trajectory explanation?

 

[edward]

ABSOLUTELY NOT! The UN report is garbage! Especially the portion describing the trajectories! I leave to you and everyone else who will take the time to critically evaluate the report to draw their own conclusions. If an eighth grader turned this into me, I would have them in the principal's office for falsifying data.

So does this mean that you think the attack was carried out by the rebels. We only have two sides to pick from. Early on, some extremely right wing news sites showed videos of rebels launching crude rockets supposedly laden with gas.

WND was one of them.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

BTW that blue warhead in the second video looks like a refrigerant 134A container to me.

On the other side we have the UN report backed by a credible institution.

The inspectors had little time and the sites that they went to show that much of the evidence has already been disturbed or removed. They did find one case where a rocket landed without exploding a warhead – indicating that it may have carried gas. The inspectors later went to a nearby site that had suffered a gas attack – possibly from the warhead of the rocket. They took physical data on the rocket body showing it was a 140 mm rocket some 630 mm long with inscriptions in Cyrillic, 10 jet nozzles, and a metal electric contact plate (firing mechanism) in the center.

http://csis.org/node/46709

 

[Bobbywhy]

In appendix 5 of their report, after describing the size and structure of two rocket delivery systems used, they go one step further and actually reveal the direction some of the rockets likely came from. Using standard field investigative techniques examining the debris field and impact area where the rockets struck, the report provides precise azimuths, or angular measurements, that allow us to work out the actual trajectory of the rockets.

“Impact site number 1 (Moadamiya) and impact site number 4 (Ein Tarma),” the inspectors wrote, “provide sufficient evidence to determine, with a sufficient degree of accuracy, the likely trajectory of the projectiles.” They go on to say that 3 of the rockets they inspected had bearings of 34 and 35 degrees for 2 of the rockets that landed in Moadamiya, and 285 degrees for 1 of the rockets that landed in Ein Tarma.

Connecting the dots provided by these numbers allows us to see for ourselves where the rockets were likely launched from and who was responsible.

The two attack locations are located 16 kilometers apart, but when mapping these trajectories, the presumed flight paths of the rockets converge on a well-known military base of the Republican Guard 104th Brigade, situated only a few kilometers north of downtown Damascus and within firing range of the neighborhoods attacked by chemical weapons.

According to declassified reference guides, the 140mm artillery rocket used on impact site number 1 (Moadamiya) has a minimum range of 3.8 kilometers and a maximum range of 9.8 kilometers. The Republican Guard 104th Brigade is approximately 9.5 km from the base. While we don’t know the firing range for the 330mm rocket that hit impact site number 4, the area is only 9.6km away from the base, well within range of most rocket systems.

The UN report did not specify how those compass readings were taken. According to this site: http://www.geo-orbit.org/sizepgs/magmapsp.html , the
Damascus magnetic variation (declination) = 5 Degrees East (of magnetic North).
If the quoted readings were not corrected for the 5 degree difference, would that affect the conclusion?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Considering the map in his post is already drawn to obfuscate the fact that the arrows don't actually meet at the center of the circle, I don't think a five degree difference will change things too much - in fact if the arrows should be rotated five degrees more to the west, they might meet at the center much more closely

 

[chemisttree]

Sure. The Report is predicated upon well-established methods of sampling, sample handling (chain of custody), training and analysis methods. Appendix 2 is devoted to referencing those methods for this report. There are no accepted standards or methods for any analysis of trajectory. Thus, this reports fails first in attributing an expertise where there is absolutely none.

There is discussion in Appendix 5 regarding the munitions found in the field. Much detail is presented regarding what can be measured (rocket tube diameter, number of bolts, size and shape, etc...) but no detail about what matters. What matters is the evidence that supports findings such as the original trajectory of the rockets. Appendix 5 has a section titled, "Considerations on the likely trajectory of the rockets." This section states:

Of the five impact sites investigated by the mission, three do not present physical characteristics allowing a successful study of the trajectories followed by the rockets involved, due to the configuration of the impact places. However, Impact site number 1 (Moadamiyah) and Impact site number 4 (Ein Tarma) provide sufficient evidence to determine, with a sufficient degree of accuracy, the likely trajectory of the projectiles.

So only two of the five impact sites were judged to have sufficient physical characteristics to allow a successful study of the trajectories followed by the rockets. The next paragraph contradicts this by introducing a third impact site that was shown to have a similar trajectory. More on that later.

The second the five sites that had physical characteristics to allow a successful study of the trajectory followed by the rocket is identified as "Impact Site Number 4" in Ein Tarma. At this site was found the 330mm rocket that contacted the surface in an area of earthy, relatively soft ground where the shaft/engine of the projectile remained dug in, undisturbed until investigated. This shaft presented no form of lateral bending, unlike many other 330mm projectiles found elsewhere. It pointed along a reverse trajectory of 284 degrees which represented an original trajectory of 105 degrees. This implies measurement to a precision of +/-0.5 degrees.

These are the two sites that were used to draw the lines back to an intersecting point within an area controlled by Syrian Government forces. Impact site 1 in Moadamiyah has a projectile that is reported to have contacted the corner of a building adjacent to where the impact crater was discovered. The motor section of the rocket is well-described as being a 140mm rocket capable of carrying a chemical munition. This rocket initially contacted the corner of an adjacent building and finally landed in the terrace of an adjacent building. The initial contact point was determined by following a line from the crater to damage to an existing fence/trellis work (later referred to as a "vegetal screen" existing over one of the adjacent walls) and was described as the corner of an adjacent building, its strongest part and most capable of deflecting the path of the projectile away from the original trajectory. The original trajectory of the projectile was traced along the line of travel after the rocket motor contacted the corner of the adjacent building, reported to be 215 degrees, so the authors believe that this part of the original projectile traveled undisturbed from the corner of the first building to its final resting place. This is bogus. When I told my wife of this impact trajectory being used to determine the original trajectory she laughed! She has years of experience as a ballistics engineer and knows of the virtual impossibility of determining the original trajectory of the original projectile after initial impact and ricochet of a PART of the original projectile! Unbelievable propaganda! It's truly mind-boggling. The author follows this with the absurdly accurate determination of an azimuth from a site determined to be of sufficiently poor quality to determine just this type of information! 214 degrees azimuth. 214 degrees! This implies a method capable of measuring the azimuth to a precision of +/- 0.5 degrees! Tell us of this method, please! Describe the method you used to determine this trajectory and what equipment did you use to accurately measure to a precision of +/-0.5 degrees! Tell us of the effect of the ricochet of the rocket motor on your "analysis"! Propaganda! Of course I've yet to discuss the obvious problem of the deployment of an explosive charge in flight and the loss of perhaps 1/2 to 2/3 of the mass of the original projectile and how that might affect the final trajectory. Why was this nonsense included in the report? None of it was referenced in the "Conclusions" section. For good reason, I say.

The description of both impact sites is qualified by the following paragraphs:

The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well traveled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

...and

As with other sites, the locations have been well traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the Mission. Time spent on the sites was well used but limited. During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.

The impact site shown in the photos on page 20 of the Report show an example of the described 330mm rocket sticking out of the ground at the base of a pile of debris, not an impact crater at all. Was this potentially manipulated rocket used to determine the azimuth of the original trajectory by unknown and perhaps ad hoc methods?

We can draw no conclusions regarding the trajectory of these projectiles given the errors and obvious bias in this report. Unfortunately this casts the entirety of the report in the same light and so the Russians are right in their assertion that we don't have enough information to make a determination.

Unbelievable! How could such an important document be allowed to go to publication with such obvious errors?

 

[epenguin]

I have so far read only the summary by HRW. However I am not seeing how the accuracy of 0.5 degrees of which Chemmstree makes an issue is one. If it were 5 or 10 degrees it would hardly affect the conclusions much it seems to me.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I have so far read only the summary by HRW. However I am not seeing how the accuracy of 0.5 degrees of which Chemmstree makes an issue is one. If it were 5 or 10 degrees it would hardly affect the conclusions much it seems to me.

The point was not whether or not the result was 100% correct, but the supposed implausibility of such accuracy in measurement.

 

[chemisttree]

The point is that amateurs are doing something they are not qualified for with material that may have been moved. Epenguin, get out your protractor and determine the zone of uncertainty given a precision of 5 or 10 degrees. Keep in mind that the point of intersection is believed to have some significance where there is none. Two different weapons systems were used and there is no reason to believe that they both came from the same location. Also keep in mind that this was included in a report that may be used to justify our involvement in this mess.

What do you think it means when a report states that only two impact sites could be used to "accurately" measure trajectories and then three are presented. And one of the sites was of an obvious, well-described ricochet? Why is this included in the report? It calls into question everything else in the report as well.

 

[chemisttree]

So does this mean that you think the attack was carried out by the rebels. We only have two sides to pick from.

I still think it is very likely that government forces carried out the attack but this report is not sufficient to provide a "smoking gun". I believe this report betrays a bias against one side where there should be none.

 

[KWilliamsAF]

At this scientific site it should be possible to get some better informed considerations than I am finding elsewhere about the probabilities concerning what has happened in Syria.

There appears little doubt that a population has suffered an attack involving probably sarin, and I think mustard gas has been mentioned.

But then there have been doubts, indeed polemics, about who did the attack. The published US Government assessment .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21

does not identify a smoking gun. The forthcoming UN inspectors' report is not expected to try and identify the attacker. But it may contain indications from which we could reason out probabilities.

In all the polemics I have seen so far (outside this site) the opinion of everyone appears determined by their political orientation and loyalties and what they want to be true, what they would like, or would best suit them, to be true. I would like to hear something more fact and knowledge-based here.

For me a crucial part would be this paragraph:

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.


Mixing? I know that modern chemical weapons are designed to be binary, i.e. the toxic agent is not carried about as such, but created by mixing precursors. Maybe they are mixed when needed or soon before? That implies well trained and officered troops, and implicates the regular army surely? Or regular units that have switched sides. However the document just says 'mixing' without explanation. As if everyone knew about it. Any comments?

Then I read in Wikipedia that, I don't know how usually, the mixing takes place inside the projectile shell. That implies that it is the side which has artillery, pretty much only the government side and it has certainly used it a lot.

The idea of binary weapons is safer storage. Can we infer that this has not been an accident? Or could the estimated 1,400 deaths from accidental shelling of storage facility and is just a fraction as dreadful as it cluld hve been with more primitive weapons?

http://www.mypixshare.net/files/img/user_uploads/displayimage.php?id=9xn4mido2q687055707.gif
Great discussion following this post. I'm curious of the probability of an accidental shelling of a chem storage facility.

 

[chemisttree]

Pretty low for a binary chemical agent. Both parts are not stored in the same place and even if they were, mixing would be... problematic. The attack was intentional to have been as deadly as it was.