US admited Using WP as a Weapon.

[Bystander]

So not anymore toxic than pretty much any other sort of smoke but still toxic. Now consider people hiding in cramped spaces for several hours at a time inhaling the stuff and without access to medical treatment. Don't you think that people would likely die from that? (snip)

No ventilation suggests that there won't be a whole lot of smoke getting in. Ventilation enough to get smoke in suggests that it'll "rinse" fairly quickly. People die of suffocation in structural fires when they are in rooms surrounded by combustion processes generating smoke. Little hard to conceive of circumstances that are going to yield concentrations adequate to kill without burning the building.

Some of the other military smokes can get rather rough; those are the ones for which medical personnel are to be prepared to handle casualties.
http://www.vnh.org/FM8285/Chapter/chapter8.html
If some of these were in use, collateral chemical casualties are conceivable.

Most of the pictures are showing bodies in various, but mostly advanced stages of decomposition.
(snip)
My big problem is with the reports of bodies being found inside of homes and even in bed with no obvious wounds. I can see why some people would think of toxic chemical weapons being used. (The locals in Fallujah claimed that poisonous gases were used).

Couple general comments/observations: 1) "no obvious wounds" may not mean "no wounds;" 2) battlefields are witches brews. Decomposition products of conventional explosives and propellants (gun powder) are toxic. I'm not aware of that many Maxim gunners killing themselves in their bunkers on the western front in WW I, but I've had the impression that they were fairly careful to keep the gun muzzles outside the firing ports. A building "full" of people firing automatic weapons and RPGs can become untenable very quickly if they happen to be "clever" and keep to the interior shadows and fire through windows without making an effort to keep the gases from muzzles, or launcher backblasts, exhausting through the windows. I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying that if the occupants were more concerned with concealment when firing than with breathing, they may have inflicted casualties upon themselves that would exhibit no wounds.

 

[Art]

No ventilation suggests that there won't be a whole lot of smoke getting in. Ventilation enough to get smoke in suggests that it'll "rinse" fairly quickly. People die of suffocation in structural fires when they are in rooms surrounded by combustion processes generating smoke. Little hard to conceive of circumstances that are going to yield concentrations adequate to kill without burning the building.
Some of the other military smokes can get rather rough; those are the ones for which medical personnel are to be prepared to handle casualties.
http://www.vnh.org/FM8285/Chapter/chapter8.html
If some of these were in use, collateral chemical casualties are conceivable.
Couple general comments/observations: 1) "no obvious wounds" may not mean "no wounds;" 2) battlefields are witches brews. Decomposition products of conventional explosives and propellants (gun powder) are toxic. I'm not aware of that many Maxim gunners killing themselves in their bunkers on the western front in WW I, but I've had the impression that they were fairly careful to keep the gun muzzles outside the firing ports. A building "full" of people firing automatic weapons and RPGs can become untenable very quickly if they happen to be "clever" and keep to the interior shadows and fire through windows without making an effort to keep the gases from muzzles, or launcher backblasts, exhausting through the windows. I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying that if the occupants were more concerned with concealment when firing than with breathing, they may have inflicted casualties upon themselves that would exhibit no wounds.

I still think SHC is a more likely theory. :rofl:

BTW the wounds described for exposure to WP i,e, small pin sized burn holes are for when WP is used legally i.e. air bursts for illumination or screening .

So while we're speculating let's imagine what happens when HE shells and WP are fired in tandem in copious amounts at people. I'd consider it likely that the multiple exploding shells would reduce the oxygen available for immediate combustion of the WP allowing large patches of the wedges to survive long enough to come into contact with and cause great damage to the people being targeted - the air would probably be rather warm as well and breathing superheated air is probably not good for one which would explain the rather descriptive term used for the process - shake = HE and bake = WP. But that's probably too obvious so maybe I'll go along with some of the others here and go for something really off the wall like SHC (spontaneous human combustion)

 

[Astronuc]

Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/21phosphorus.html?th&emc=th (registration required, access free for 7 days)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, NY Times - On Nov. 8, Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year. Many civilians died of burns, the report said.

The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts. But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response - making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city - that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up.

The Iraqi government has announced an investigation, and a United Nations spokeswoman has expressed concern.

"It's discredited the American military without any basis in fact," said John E. Pike, an expert on weapons who runs GlobalSecurity.org, an independent clearinghouse for military information. He said the "stupidity and incompetence" of official comments had fueled suspicions of a cover-up.

"The story most people around the world have is that the Americans are up to their old tricks - committing atrocities and lying about it," Mr. Pike said. "And that's completely incorrect."

Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit organization that researches nuclear issues, was more cautious. In light of the issues raised since the film was shown, he said, the Defense Department, and perhaps an independent body, should review whether American use of white phosphorus had been consistent with international weapons conventions.

"There are legitimate questions that need to be asked," Mr. Kimball said. Given the history of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in Iraq, he said, "we have to be extremely careful" to comply with treaties and the rules of war.

At a time when opposition to the war is growing, the white phosphorus issue has reinforced the worst suspicions about American actions.

The documentary was quickly posted as a video file on Web sites worldwide. Bloggers trumpeted its allegations. Foreign newspapers and television reported the charges and rebuttals, with headlines like "The Big White Lie" in The Independent of London.

Officials now acknowledge that the government's initial response was sluggish and misinformed.

"There's so much inaccurate information out there now that I'm not sure we can unscrew it," Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesman who has handled many inquiries about white phosphorus, said Friday.

But they said white phosphorus would have burned victims' clothing. The bodies in the film appeared to be decomposed, they said.

After the Italian documentary was broadcast, the American ambassadors to Italy, Ronald P. Spogli, and to Britain, Robert H. Tuttle, echoed the stock defense, denying that white phosphorus munitions had been used against enemy fighters, let alone civilians. At home, on the public radio program "Democracy Now," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said, "I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus."

But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.

In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.

While he said he could not rule out that white phosphorus hit some civilians, "U.S. and coalition forces took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Falluja."

 

[edward]

Can you show me a source stating that the HE was used to scatter the WP intentionally or is this your theory? Can you show me a source for this being the definition of "shake and Bake.

It has been the common military term for mixed WP and HE for several years.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/11/shake_n_bake.html
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/11/shake_n_bake.html

That they were asphixiated due to the smoke I believe is very possible in my opinion. I've been wondering what the casualty numbers were and how many of these casualties had burn marks that could be attributed to WP and how many might be attributed to asphixiation.

I have been wondering that myself. Especially as it pertains to women and children. Most of the pictures I find are of men with numbered ID's and the military puts the numbers on. I don't think that the military would clear photos of women and children.

If you reread what you posted they were getting rid of the gas because they apparently could not use the shells unless they were "degassed". It also states that the problem with the gas was that it posed a danger to those using the shells.

I did read the entire link, as a matter of fact I found phosphine hazards referenced in several links. They did not release the gas from shells until well after the attack on Falluja. I used the link as proof that the military did have shells containing phosphine. They had to de-gas the shells because they were illegal to use with the phosphene in them.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/safety/phosphin.htm
Phosphine gas would not be produced by a fire considering that phosphine gas is highly flammable. The fire in the streets would have consumed the gas not produced it.

Which of course would have consumed oxygen making the aspixiation idea even more credible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It has been the common military term for mixed WP and HE for several years.

You're source isn't very clear on the matter, it simply sites the use of WP and HE without much detail.

I did read the entire link, as a matter of fact I found phosphine hazards referenced in several links. They did not release the gas from shells until well after the attack on Falluja. I used the link as proof that the military did have shells containing phosphine. They had to de-gas the shells because they were illegal to use with the phosphene in them.

It says that they were degassing the shells so they would be ready for use and those using them wouldn't have to degas the shells themselves before utilizing them. They said that the degassing was necessary to the safety of marines, that is to say the people using the shells.

Red phosphorus reacts slowly with oxygen and water vapor and can evolve phosphine gas, which is highly toxic. The reaction is extremely slow at normal temperatures and humidities and is not considered to be a factor in the deployment of phosphorus munitions in military operations. However, this reaction can be catalyzed by metal ions (e.g., iron and copper), which can markedly increase the oxidation rate. The physical and chemical properties of red phosphorus are listed below: Formula: Polymeric (P4)n CAS no.: 7723-14-0 Molecular weight: 123.9n Density: 2.34 g/cm3 Melting point: Sublimes at 416°C
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309057361/html/98.html

Phosphine gas occurs due to moisture and oxidation as phosphorus mortar rounds degrade over time. The degassing was not done because the the shells were made with it and it is illegal to use shells with phosphine gas in them it is because it means the shells are degrading and are unsafe to use unless degassed.

http://www.armycorrosion.com/past_s...orning/Sid_Markowitz_session/Jules_Senske.pdf
Phosphine gas was not introduced into the Fallujah battle field. If you have a source that states otherwise please post it.

 

[edward]

You're source isn't very clear on the matter, it simply sites the use of WP and HE without much detail.

Call it what you want the Marines call it shake and bake.

Shake 'n' bake

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

The author of this information WAS THERE., but no I can't do a double blind study and a statistical analysis that provides empirical evidence. As a matter of fact the information in the link is from the assault on the city in April. If it was SHAKE AND BAKE In April it was SHAKE AND BAKE In November. Hell Bells man call it "COOKING 101" if you want!

http://www.armycorrosion.com/past_s...orning/Sid_Markowitz_session/Jules_Senske.pdf

This link is referring to red phosphorus.

Phosphine gas was not introduced into the Fallujah battle field. If you have a source that states otherwise please post it.

Did I say that it was intentionally used in Fallujah?? That is your assumption. My assumption was that as time passed the shells used would have phosphine present.
As for the slow degredation of phosphorus producing poshine gas, it happens very quickly when heated. Since phosphine gas is a quite frequent by product of industrial processes, and not all of those WP shells used were shiny and new, I only thew it into the post to bring out discussion that might help to explain the obvious asphyxiations.

And no I can't provide pictures of obvious asphyxiations. But I can supply links providing information that indicates that non combatants were found dead in their beds. But of course you would doubt them anyway because that information was provided by the non combatant survivors in Fallujah.

 

[russ_watters]

Edward, you didn't take part in the previous discussion where the "shake and bake" quote originated, so I can't assume you saw the original quote. Art, you responded too that part, so you must have seen the original quote. The original quote was:

(quoted by Burnsys in post 58 of the previous thread)...using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

Both of you have switched the "shake" and the "bake". Art, besides being a lie, I can only assume you are trolling us by intentionally lying about an issue that has already been covered. Edward, if you acknowledge your error and correct yourself, I won't have to assume you are purposefully lying as well.

edit: Correction, I see the link that you posted, edward, has the same quote as what Burnsys posted. So you must also know that you are using the phrase incorrectly.

Besides intentionally switching the "shake" and the "bake", you guys are speculating - ie, making crap up as you go along - and passing it off as accepted facts. That's not acceptable either.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Call it what you want the Marines call it shake and bake.

The Marines and military people quoted have referred to "shake n bake" as flushing out a target with WP and then taking out the target with HE. This is not the definition you have used.
The reporter quoted only refers to the use of WP and the use of HE with no further details. He mentions them getting a WP shell and then talks of bombarding the targets with both WP and HE but does not mention how many WP shells were used compared to the number of HE shells. He does not say that the HE shells were used to spread around the WP (per your definition of shake n bake). He does not go into it any further than to say that they used both sorts of shells and referred to what they were doing as "shake n bake". You call that a clear definition?

Did I say that it was intentionally used in Fallujah?? That is your assumption. My assumption was that as time passed the shells used would have phosphine present.
As for the slow degredation of phosphorus producing poshine gas, it happens very quickly when heated. Since phosphine gas is a quite frequent by product of industrial processes, and not all of those WP shells used were shiny and new, I only thew it into the post to bring out discussion that might help to explain the obvious asphyxiations.

Perhaps you are skimming through what you read too quickly. YOUR link describes the degassing of Phos mortar shells prepratory to sending them out in the field because the Phosphine gas is dangerous to the user of the shells and these must be degassed before use. The link YOU posted clearly states that they do this so that soldiers in the field don't have to degas the shells themselves which takes up valuable time.
Two points you seem to be missing here..
- Phosphine gas in the mortar shells is dangerous to the user of the shell.
- Users of said shells degas the rounds in need of degassing themselves on the field before use.

When I pointed this out you replied with...

I did read the entire link, as a matter of fact I found phosphine hazards referenced in several links. They did not release the gas from shells until well after the attack on Falluja. I used the link as proof that the military did have shells containing phosphine. They had to de-gas the shells because they were illegal to use with the phosphene in them.

So please show me where it states the marines used shells with Phosphine gas in them on Fellujah and where it states that using such shells is illegal.

 

[Moonbear]

This thread just seems to be going in circles, rehashing the same speculation that got the previous thread on this topic closed. Thus, it is time for this one to be closed as well.