The United Nations’ Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) recently released their report into the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, in the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR.) Despite having the mandate to apportion blame, the OPCW did not. Which is understandable given the evidence uncovered by their investigation. You can read a full précis of the report at the end of this article. I suggest those interested check the précis against the full report to verify my interpretation of the various OPCW statements.
Following the alleged attack, the Western mainstream media (MSM) was full of reports about the supposed atrocity. The Guardian wrote ‘Assad’s Crime: The World’s Responsibility.’ The Times ran with the headline the ‘Evidence Shows Syria Attacked Own People With Chemical Weapon.’ The New York Times wrote ‘One Building, One Bomb: How Assad Gassed His Own People.’
In fact the BBC, CNN, Fox, Ch4, ITV, all the print and online MSM, were all of one, single, cohesive voice. They all categorically blamed the ‘Assad regime’ (the democratically elected government of the Syria) for murdering his own people. Almost without exception, they called for military reprisals. More war was the only answer on offer.
This wave of uniform, uncritical, on message, yet supposedly ‘independent’ media, dovetailed perfectly with the political rhetoric. Stoking up the public appetite for more killing. This culminated in the military partnership of the UK and France, goading their big brother the U.S into coordinated joint airstrikes against Syria. Speaking about her decision to launch military action, the UK Prime Minister Theresa May made a speech to Parliament on the 14th April which included the following statements:
“This evening I have authorised British armed forces to conduct co-ordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use……….In Douma, last Saturday a chemical weapons attack killed up to 75 people, including young children, in circumstances of pure horror……A significant body of information including intelligence indicates the Syrian Regime is responsible for this latest attack………This persistent pattern of behaviour must be stopped………This action is specifically about deterring the Syrian Regime………We would have preferred an alternative path. But on this occasion there is none.”
The OPCW were dispatched to find the evidence. Unfortunately, the OPCW were heavily reliant upon information received from the highly dubious White Helmets, who they inaccurately referred to as the Syrian Civil Defence (SCD.) They also relied on footage that can only have come from the terrorist groups, possibly working with the White Helmets.
The White Helmets are predominantly funded by the British and American government. This immediately introduced a significantly increased risk of bias in the OPCW report. Consequently the OPCW report is littered with contradictory evidence. It is difficult to see how they arrived at their conclusions based upon the evidence contained within their own report. In particular they appear to have studiously ignored some obvious questions and have instead created a very tentative narrative, largely unsupported by their own evidence.
The alleged attack occurred on the April 7th 2018. The OPCW Fact Finding Mission (FFM) arrived in Syria and eventually began their investigation on April 21st, two weeks after the alleged attack. When the FFM first tried to enter Sector 3 they were met with resistance and had to withdraw. Following some negotiation, the SAR agreed to provide security for the FFM at their Hotel and the Russian Military Police made the area safe, and provided security for the FFM during their investigation.
There are some key locations you need to be familiar with in order to understand the report.
Named Locations.
There are were 6 locations which the OPCW focused upon. These were:
Location 1: Hospital where the alleged victims were treated often referred to as “Point 1” in the report.
Location 2: A roof terrace where a yellow cylinder was found.
Location 4: A bedroom in a building near the Great Mosque where a yellow cylinder was found on a bed.
Sector 3: This is the area allegedly attacked and contains Location 2 and 4. It is also where the White Helmets centre, referred to in the report, is situated.
In addition there was a warehouse and a manufacturing facility, referred to as “the facility,” which the SAR suggested as possible locations for chemical weapons’ storage and manufacture.
OPCW Findings Summary:
9.1 The FFM concluded that samples taken at Loc.2 and 4 indicate the presence of reactive chlorine.
9.2 The FFM concluded no nerve agents were detected.
9.3 The FFM concluded there was no evidence of any other chemical agent detected.
9.4 The FFM concluded there was no evidence to support the SAR allegation that the warehouse or the facility were used either for chemical weapons storage or production. Rather they were apparently used to store and produce conventional explosives.
9.6 The FFM concluded, due to the lack of biomedical evidence, it was not possible to say what chemical killed the victims seen in the ‘open source’ videos and photographs.
9.9 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.2 was consistent with the impact of the yellow canister upon the roof terrace.
9.10 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.4 was consistent with the yellow cylinder found on the bed which, having fallen through the roof, continued an altered trajectory.
9.11 The FFM concluded it was possible the yellow cylinders were the source of the reactive chlorine.
9.12 The FFM concluded it was reasonable to state a chemical weapons attack took place. The toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
Location 2. The roof Terrace.
The FFM noted that the cylinder had been moved a number of times before their arrival. They noted a very similar crater on an adjacent building which had not been subject to an alleged chemical weapons attack. They did not explain the release mechanism for the alleged chlorine.
Location 4. The Bedroom.
The FFM noted the cylinder had been cleaned and a number of other items moved prior to their investigation. The FFM did not account for how the cylinder had moved from the point of impact to the bed. Nor did they note any damage to the floor where the cylinder allegedly initially landed in the room. No such damage is visible. They did not explain the release mechanism for the alleged chlorine.
The Warehouse
The FFM did not find any evidence of chemical weapon manufacture. The FFM found a yellow cylinder similar though not identical to the two found at Loc.2 and 4. The FFM did not test the contents of the cylinder. The FFM stated the presence of a cylinder, which reportedly contained chlorine gas, was not consistent with the production of explosives.
The Facility
The FFM found no evidence that the facility had been used as a chemical weapons manufacturing facility and no evidence linking the facility to the potential storage of such weapons at the warehouse. Two swabs were taken from large steel mixing tanks. One swab was tested and did not indicate the mixing of chemical agents or reactive chlorine. The FFM noted the lack of ventilation and the absence of protective measures against chemical exposure. The FFM concluded the facility was not used for manufacturing chemical weapons.
[sociallocker id=”2283″] [/sociallocker]
So let’s look at each of the FFM’s findings in turn and compare that to the evidence in the report. We will consider potential questions which arise as a result.
The first thing to note is that the OPCW reported it was the Assad government and the Russian Federation who first requested that the FFM be sent to investigate the alleged attack (3.3). The SAR also requested the FFM investigate the warehouse and the facility. No firm conclusion can be drawn from this, though we might wonder why the supposed guilty party would want to encourage an investigation.
9.1 The FFM concluded that samples taken at Loc.2 and 4 indicate the presence of reactive (molecular) chlorine.
A total of 8 of 16 environmental samples taken at Loc.2, and 7 of 11 taken at Loc.4, tested positive for chemicals consistent with the presence of reactive chlorine (8.5.) this is consistently reported throughout the OPCW report (see below). It seems clear that chlorine contamination occurred at some point.
9.2 The FFM concluded no nerve agents were detected.
Another consistency was the lack of any evidence suggesting any other form of toxic nerve agent was used. However, this does not mean the victims died as a result of exposure to reactive (molecular) chlorine. There are a number of reasons why we might question this (covered below.) Death by some other form of nerve agent was not ruled out because neither the time nor place of death was established.
9.3 The FFM concluded there was no evidence of any other chemical agent detected.
(As above.) While the OPCW only found evidence of the presence of reactive chlorine, this does not mean this is how the victims allegedly died.
9.4 The FFM concluded there was no evidence to support the SAR’s allegation that the warehouse or the facility were used either for chemical weapons storage or production. Rather, they were apparently used to store and produce conventional explosives.
The OPCW appeared to show a remarkable lack of inquisitiveness in their investigation of the warehouse and the facility. Their findings were based upon an observation of the apparent lack of ventilation and their record of the stored chemicals at the site (8.40.) In addition, a bag of Hexamine (explosive) was found at the warehouse which was tested (8.5.)
However, remarkably, the OPCW recorded the testing of just one sample from the facility and none at all from the warehouse (8.5.) This facility sample was a swab taken from the outlet of a metal mixing tank and it did not evidence the manufacture of chlorine gas. Of course others may, but they didn’t take any.
However, they did find a yellow cylinder similar (but not identical) to those found at Loc.2 and 4. The OPCW did not test the contents of this cylinder but conceded that the presence of a chlorine filled cylinder at the site was not consistent with the manufacturing of explosives. So it is regrettable they didn’t examine it.
The OPCW evidence suggests the warehouse and the facility were used to manufacture explosives but certainly does not rule out their use for chemical weapons. The unexplained reluctance to test the cylinder and bizarre lack of sampling means the possibility remains.
The question must be asked. Why were the FFM seemingly so incurious? Why not investigate thoroughly and take far more samples?
9.6 The FFM concluded, due to the lack of biomedical evidence, it is not possible to say what chemical killed the victims seen in the videos and photographs.
The evidence surrounding the victims overwhelmingly came from the White Helmets and other unnamed witnesses who weren’t medically trained. The Video evidence raised more questions than it resolved, as did the tweets, blogs and Facebook posts which the OPCW also took as their ‘open source’ evidence (5.1.) Moreover, the claims of the White Helmets were entirely inconsistent with the medical evidence and the testimony of medical professionals.
Firstly the White Helmets claimed the attack took place at 16:00 hrs approximately (8.55.) However this was contradicted by testimony of other witnesses who stated that they heard the cylinder impacts at 19:00 (8.58.)
Medical staff reported they were alerted to the attack a little after 19:00 with casualties arriving shortly thereafter (8.56.) This lends credibility to an attack time of 19:00 approximately and casts doubt upon White Helmet claims of an earlier time for the attack and their associated narrative (8.55.) Similarly, they claimed that people died of chemical weapons exposure in the tunnels leading to the Hospital. They provided many YouTube videos to that effect. The FFM could find no evidence at all to back up any of these claims (8.38.)
This is troubling, because it appears all the bodies were transported to the hospital by the White Helmets (8.57.) The bodies of 3 alleged victims arriving on the evening of the 7th and another 40 on the 8th.
It should also be noted that no medical professional treated any of the casualties at the Hospital for the effects of a chlorine gas attack (8.55.) Rather, they were all treated for the effects of dust and smoke inhalation. The casualties did not apparently present with life threatening conditions. None of the deceased died in hospital (8.48, 8.52, 8.54, 8.78, 8.83, 8.93 etc.)
Medical professionals didn’t know a chemical attack had occurred (they had no reason to suspect one) until an unnamed person shouted “chemical, chemical.” At which point people started being stripped and hosed down by the White Helmets (8.50.)
It is notable that the chaos in the hospital was compounded by the fact that many medical staff had left for the relative safety of SAR controlled areas. Leaving a skeleton staff compliment and an awful lot of White Helmets (8.46.) Not only did the White Helmets bring all the bodies to the hospital, they also took them to the makeshift morgue and buried them. Many said they didn’t know where (8.47.)
Clearly the OPCW report highlights a shocking disparity between the presentation of the casualties, who did not appear to be suffering from the effects of chlorine gas inhalation, and the deceased, who all allegedly died from it. The FFM was provided with 11 biological samples from casualties, none of which tested positive for reactive chlorine (7.3.) The only positive test came from a piece of clothing for which there was no clear chain of custody.
All the evidence relating to the deaths of the alleged 43 victims was controlled by the Western government backed White Helmets. All original footage, showing the deceased, and images were taken by ‘photo journalists’ and bloggers who could operate freely in territory controlled, at the time, by the terrorist groups. The White Helmets also had no problems working with the terrorists.
That the FFM and the OPCW made no comment on the credibility of this evidence is unbelievable. In order to establish how the deceased died, the FFM requested that the bodies be exhumed for analysis. It seems the SAR agreed to this with some unknown provisions. It is unfathomable, therefore, to understand why the FFM did not proceed with the exhumations (7.8.) Why, if they could do so, didn’t they even try to get some meaningful biomedical samples?
Witness statements were inconclusive with some claiming hundreds of bodies and others none at all (8.53.) Consequently the FFM had no idea how any of the victims supposedly perished or how many and were solely reliant on YouTube videos shot by terrorist and the White Helmets.
From the video evidence the FFM said the arching of the bodies appeared to show a sudden, convulsive death, consistent with the rapid onset of chemical poisoning (8.99.)
Without any credible evidence to establish the precise causes of death, for the 43 alleged victims, all the FFM could do was make an unsubstantiated suggestions about where and how the decedents lost their lives. Something they acknowledged in this conclusions (9.6.)
The Video evidence offered by the terrorist and the White Helmets simply added to the confusion. The FFM didn’t know how, or even if, the alleged victims died at either Loc.2 or 4. They reported that bodies had been moved, the adults showed signs of foaming at the mouth, while children didn’t; the discoloration around the eyes, seen on many, was atypical of death by chlorine inhalation, as was the filmed foaming of the mouth; a number had wet hair, though the ground was dry (suggesting they were moved from somewhere else,) and they had no physical evidence of any corpses. (8.90, 8.93, 8.98, 8.100, 8.101, 8.102.)
The questions that arise from all this are so numerous I’ll leave you to form yours. Personally, I would like to know why intergovernmental organisation, like the U.N, governments and international bodies of inquiry think social media posts, home videos, bloggers rants, terrorists and the groups that work with them are a trustworthy source of information? How can this ever provide a plausible basis for military action against a sovereign state?
9.9 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.2 was consistent with the impact of the yellow canister upon the roof terrace.
Firstly, at no point, did the FFM clarify how the gas was released from either cylinder. Presumably we are supposed to guess. The FFM stated that the yellow cylinder at Loc.2 landed on the eastern corner of the terrace and punched a hole through the roof. However the cylinder did not fall through the hole but rather fell over. Spilling its allegedly lethal payload through the hole into the building below maybe?
Loc.2 is where the majority of the victims allegedly died, though there is significant reason for doubt (2.14, 8.26, 8.31.) The FFM employed a team of ‘experts’ to generate computer models of how the craters and the impact damage was caused by the cylinders (for both Loc.2 & 4.)
Perhaps the use of the computer models was necessary because the physical evidence didn’t support any of the OPCW’s claims. Firstly, while they assumed the hole in the terrace was caused by the cylinder, a practically identical hole was seen on the adjacent terrace that was not caused by a falling cylinder to anyone’s knowledge. Furthermore the cylinder appeared to have been moved ‘several times.’ Raising doubt about how it got there.
The OPCW reported that the cylinder fell nose first, directly down upon the roof, puncturing a hole by smashing the roofing out of the way. However, they then claimed, rather than fall through the hole or wedge in it, the cylinder somehow bounced (presumably) back out of the hole to rest, on its side, next to it.
The hole was larger than the circumference of the cylinder, so what did it bounce off? The simulation showed the ‘zone of complete disintegration’ where the cylinder completely destroyed the roof beneath it. It can’t have both removed all the debris in its path and bounced back off it. The trajectory suggested by the models did not show the cylinder following the path of least resistance. A first for ballistics I would imagine.
The FFM stated they believed the prior impact upon the corner of the roof terrace wall reduced the velocity of the cylinder, claiming this meant it didn’t have sufficient energy (force) to fall through the subsequent hole. Yet clearly it had enough to create it. The FFM claimed the collision with the terrace wall changed the trajectory of the cylinder. Suggesting, but not showing, the cylinder striking at an angle. However, the shape of the hole appeared to preclude that idea. The FFM noted the 45 degree slope to the hole perimeter, suggesting the cylinder hit the roof terrace perpendicularly, rather than a glancing blow. This is shown clearly in the models they produced. However, the FFM were at pains to point out that the ‘models’ don’t show the strike angle, which brings their relevance into question.
The FFM produced a nonsensical “mish-mash” of contradictory evidence. Both the hole and their ‘expert’ models suggest a nose first, perpendicular impact. In such circumstances, given the greater circumference of the hole, the cylinder should have gone through or wedged in the hole. Gravity is still gravity no matter how fast an object is moving. Yet the cylinder was found in an unexpected position. The FFM were right when they observed the cylinder had been moved. Any notion the FFM can determine the delivery method of the cylinder, from this evidence, would be untenable.
9.10 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.4 was consistent with the yellow cylinder found on the bed which, having fallen through the roof, continued an altered trajectory.
If the FFM’s damage analysis at Loc.2 was confusing their explanation for the final location of the yellow cylinder at Loc.4 bordered upon comical. Firstly they showed the cylinder had stabilisation fins, suggesting it should have dropped nose first. However, perhaps because the hole created was entirely inconsistent with this, they concluded it must have landed on its side without offering any explanation to account for this failure of the fins. The fins are clearly visible as it rests on the bed.
Next, the cylinder landed on the floor of the bedroom, without any evidence of impact and, according to the FFM, “continued an altered trajectory,” landing on the bed. Again, the FFM offered no evidence or explanation to account for how the cylinder performed this sharp about turn. They then appeared to list a number of extremely minor, secondary concerns about some ornaments that had moved and broken shower cubicles.
This appeared to be an ham-fisted attempt at misdirection. By focusing upon trivialities, the FFM avoided any discussion of the fact that the cylinders’ resting place could not be explained. Quite obviously the cylinder could not have possibly fallen through the hole in the roof and ended up on the bed. Someone put it there.
9.11 The FFM concluded it is possible the yellow cylinders were the source of the reactive chlorine.
Both cylinders were found to have traces of reactive (molecular) chlorine in and on them. So this is a reasonable finding. It was entirely possible, though by no means proven. However seeing as the FFM did not show how the cylinders ended up where they were, they had no idea where the gas was released from them either. Nor did they bother to mention how the gas was released. Given the samples taken from the sites, it seems feasible at least they were the source of the released gas at loc.2 & 4. But it’s just conjecture.
9.12 The FFM concluded it was reasonable to state a chemical weapons attack took place. The toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
Based upon the samples taken this seems a fair statement. There certainly appears to have been a release of chlorine gas in and around Loc.2 and 4.
However, what certainly cannot be said, based upon the FFM report, is that 43 people died in or near Loc.2 and 4 from chlorine gas inhalation. There was no evidence at all to support that assertion. So claiming it was an ‘attack’ is a bit of a stretch. Mass murder by persons unknown at an undisclosed location would be more accurate.
The FFM have not provided a shred of evidence clarifying who committed the alleged attack. However the evidence within the report strongly suggests that the most likely culprits would have been either Jaish al Islam, the white Helmets or both. The evidence shows the majority of casualties treated by doctors and medical professionals were not victims of any sort of chemical attack. All medical witness testimony was consistent on this point.
Another consistency was that the only people who had any contact with the decedents were the White Helmets and, quite possibly, members of terrorist organisations. The OPCW don’t have any evidence attesting to how these people died and none showing where they died. They have no biomedical samples and don’t even know where they were buried. They reported evidence indicating that the bodies were moved and showed post mortem injuries inconsistent with death from exposure to chlorine gas. All witness statements recording sightings of bodies came from people who remained in an area deserted by pretty much everyone apart from terrorist and their families.
Final thoughts.
Recently, a BBC producer called Riam Delati stated that he had been investigating and can prove that the footage shown in the hospital was staged. He added that ‘activists’ were manipulating the scene at Loc.2. Reverting to BBC type, he then claimed this had something to do with the Russians. Regardless, the FFM OPCW report was entirely supportive of this notion.
The carefully constructed, heart rending footage and images splashed across the entire MSM were almost certainly faked. This does not mean no one died. Sadly, the White Helmets have already proven they are capable of using corpses for their own propaganda purposes.
The Western MSM narrative of Assad’s Douma chemical weapon attack, long questioned by many castigated as conspiracy theorists, has collapsed. It is moribund.
It is clear that neither the UK, French nor the U.S. government had any ‘intelligence’ at all to justify their airstrike. In doing so, they were responding to nothing but their own manufactured narrative. A single, cohesive MSM wide campaign ensued. It represented nothing other than a deliberate attempt to lead Western voters into supporting another illegal military action. All to advance the geopolitical agenda of criminals and embezzlers.
Like WMD and so many other lies before it, the question we all need to ask ourselves is how long are we going to continue to believe these warmongering absurdities. How much evidence do you need to understand that we do not have a free press and are governed by liars.
Précis of Report
2.1 Douma ‘attack’ on 7 April 2018.
2.3 Fact Finding Mission (FFM) conducts first tests April 21. Two weeks after attack.
2.7 No organic nerve agents found.
2.10 Witness testimony and Video and photographic evidence indicates 43 decedents in and around the apartment block. FFM had no access to any bodies as they had been buried.
2.11 Witness and video evidence indicates exposure to an inhalation irritant or toxic substance. However this cannot be confirmed without physical toxicology of decedents.
2.12 Two yellow cylinders found at two separate locations marked Loc.2 & 4.
2.13 the FFM consulted engineering and ballistic experts and used specialised computer modelling techniques to calculate trajectories of the cylinders.
2.14 The location of the cylinder at Loc.2 is consistent with the creation of the aperture observed on the terrace, next to the cylinder found in that location.
2.15 The cylinder at Loc.4, after passing through the ceiling and impacting the floor at lowers speed, continued an altered trajectory, until reaching the position in which it was found (on the bed.)
2.16 It is possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine, based upon samples taken.
2.17 The toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
3.3 Following allegations the Permanent Representation of the Syrian Arab Republic to the OPCW requested the FFM team be dispatched urgently to visit the town of Douma to verify the information surrounding the alleged use of toxic chemicals on 7 April 2018. This request was supported by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation.
4.2 Syrian Arab Republic request the FFM visit a warehouse suspected of storing chemicals related to the production of chemical weapons.
5.1 Immediately following the ‘attack,’ the FFM conduct a review of open-source information to assess the credibility of the allegation. The major sources comprised news media, blogs and the websites of various non-governmental organisations. Predominantly YouTube videos, tweets and articles.
6.3 The SAR provided security at the hotel where the FFM stayed and the Russian Military police provided security for the FFM at the various sites.
6.4 Initial attempt to visit the site on the 18th was repelled by a “hostile crowd.” The hostile crowd were well armed with small arms.
6.9 The SAR did not provide the FFM access to some locked private apartments as they said they did not have the authority. The FFM visited Loc.2 and twice visited Loc.4.
7.3 The FFM were given additional environmental and biological samples and followed a chain of custody protocol. 11 biomedical samples were tested with none showing any evidence of the alleged chemicals. One piece of clothing, allegedly from a victim, showed the presence of Dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, dichlorophenol, trichlorophenol.
7.8 The FFM requested exhumation to take biomedical samples from the decedents. The SAR agreed but stipulated some conditions. The FFM decided not to proceed.
8.2 The weather was overcast and wind speed was low on the day of the attacks.
8.5 129 samples in total (both environmental and biological) were collected. Of these, 31 were selected for the first round of analysis (though 33 are recorded) and 13 were tested further. Traces of chemical contaminants including Bornyl chloride, Dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, chlorophenol, dichlorophenol, trinitrotoluene were found in 8 out of 16 environmental samples taken at Loc.2 and 7 of 11 taken at Loc.4. A bag of hexamine (explosives) was found at the warehouse site. One sample was recorded from a water outlet pipe at the alleged chemical weapons facility suggested by the SAR. No other samples were recorded at this site. 3 of 4 samples received from witnesses proved not to have been contaminated. 1 sample (the piece of clothing) was found to be contaminated.
8.17 The FFM conclude that at Loc.2 and 4 there were reasonable grounds to indicate that molecular chlorine was present.
8.19 No chemical evidence linked the Location 1 (hospital) to the cylinder sites prior to the alleged attack.
8.20 In additions to the samples, a large number of photographs and video evidence was taken by the FFM during their inspection.
8.24 Loc.2 was a 4 story apartment block. The block and its basement were investigated by the FFM.
8.26 The intact yellow cylinder was found on the roof terrace of Loc. 2 on the east side with its nozzle poised over a circular opening in the concrete roof.
8.31 FFM analyses indicated that the structural damage to the rebar-reinforced concrete terrace at Loc.2 was caused by an impacting object with a geometrically symmetric shape and sufficient kinetic energy to cause the observed damage. All the damage seen in the building was, according to the FFM, consistent with the creation of the aperture observed on the terrace by the cylinder found in that location.
8.32 The FFM visited Loc.4 on the 25th. They noted that the cylinder was alleged to have penetrated the roof, and the room below, where it supposedly reached its final position (on the bed.)
8.33 The FFM team stated that the cylinder was not ruptured (rather malformed by the impact.) There was no chemical evidence of chlorine gas found to be present in the bedroom with the exception of a piece of wood found beneath the cylinder which showed the highest level of contamination of all wood samples taken during the FFM investigation.
8.34 The FFM consulted experts and created computer models. They stated there was a presumed initial landing point following which the cylinder continued an altered trajectory, onto the bed, landing on a piece of wood, on the bed.
8.35 The FFM stated the malformation of the canister was consistent with the aperture damage to the roof and building through which the cylinder allegedly traversed.
8.37 The FFM visited the Hospital (Loc.1) where they learned the victims’ bodies were taken to a morgue “Point 200” and that the Syrian Civil Defence (the White Helmets) has assisted with this task.
8.38 No chemical evidence was found to corroborate the video evidence offered by the White Helmets that people died of chemical weapons exposure in the tunnels leading to the Hospital.
8.39 No chemical evidence was found at the alleged warehouse nor other facility which the SAR suggested as potential chemical weapons production/storage sites.
8.40 Evidence indicated these locations were involved in the production of conventional explosives.
8.41 A total of 39 witnesses were interviewed: 11 medical staff and 28 witnesses including 11 alleged causalities.
8.46 Due to the fact that many medical staff had left the hospital for the relative safety of SAR controlled territory, the FFM stated many volunteers were assisting the hospital staff.
8.47 The White Helmets were in charge of burying the deceased. A number of witnesses reported they were unaware of the location of the burial sites.
8.48 A number of medical staff, who were present, stated there were many fatalities caused by suffocation from dust and rubble as a consequence of the heavy shelling.
8.50 The FFM reported that, while victims were being treated, an unknown person shouted “chemical, chemical” and people started being stripped and washed down.
8.51 Medical staff treated casualties but, due to staffing pressures, the numbers were not recorded. All were discharged by 13.00 on the 8th.
8.52 Some medical staff stated that they did not know of the alleged chemical attack until a couple of days after the attack.
8.53 Conflicting witness statements from non-medical witnesses reported either a large number of bodies in the hospital or none at all.
8.54 Some medical staff stated that the casualties were not showing symptoms of exposure to chemical weapons while stating they were not experienced in treating chemical weapon related injuries. No one reported the smell of chlorine. The reported smell was of smoke.
8.55 The FFM stated the White Helmets reported that up to 18 victims were treated for the effects of chemical weapons at their centre amidst ‘witness’ claims of a chemical weapon attack at 16:00. No casualties showing symptoms of a chemical weapons attack were treated at the Hospital. All of the alleged chemical weapons victims were treated by the White Helmets at their centre in Sector 3.
8.56 Shortly after 19.00 (3hrs after the attack) victims showing possible signs of exposure to chemical weapons started arriving at the hospital (Loc.1.)
8.57 Three bodies were brought to the Hospital by the White Helmets on the evening of the 7th. The remaining 40 bodies were reportedly brought to the hospital the following day by the White Helmets. Witnesses stated these bodies showed signs of exposure to chemical weapons, with blue skin and foaming of the mouth.
8.58 The FFM state that witnesses hiding in shelters reported the sound of barrels falling (rather than conventional explosives) at 19.00 approximately (three hours after the alleged attack claimed by the White Helmets.) The witnesses stated they distinctly smelt chlorine.
8.62 Witnesses stated that those who remained in shelters or sheltered in or near the building died. The survivors were those who evacuated.
8.63 The White Helmets were advised my medical staff at the hospital not to bring any more bodies on the night of the attack.
8.69 The first witnesses reportedly arrived at Loc.4 at around 22.30. They reported finding the yellow cylinder on the bed. They reported a strong smell of chlorine and the effects of gas inhalation.
8.73 The FFM could not establish casualty figures. Some reported up to 500 others none.
8.74 The number of dead is reported to be 43 by witnesses.
8.78 Medical staff reported most casualties they saw as having mild symptoms. Some more severe casualties were reportedly in a deranged state.
8.79 Medical staff reported shortness of breath, skin and eye irritation, foaming of the mouth. A unspecified minority were reported to have presented with seizure like effects.
8.80 No medical staff reported constricted pupils. One said 4 severe patients had dilated pupils.
8.83 Symptoms were treated but no diagnostic tests were performed.
8.90 The FFM analysed the video of Loc.2 and stated that metadata showed they were filmed between 13 and 16 hours after the alleged attacks. All appeared dead. Many were seen to be foaming at the mouth. However the FFM reported there was no correlation between the foaming mouths of the adults and the absence of those symptoms seen on the child victims. The FFM stated that victims appeared to have been moved to one room and rigor mortis is seen in at least one victim. The victims appear to have wet hair in an otherwise dry environment.
8.93 The FFM report the washing of children seen in videos and state none appeared to be ill.
8.95 The FFM report that video of the 20 patients (approx) treated in what appears to be a temporary facility. They note the respiratory distress of the children and milder distress of the adults and state no critically ill patients are seen, apart from one child.
8.96 The FFM report that the video of victims inside the building indicate the rapid onset of paralysis and death. This supports exposure to a lethal substance.
8.98 The foaming of the mouth seen on many victims is said to have been of a consistency more like viscous foam than secretions typically originating from the upper or lower airways. There also appear to be victims with and without secretions in very close proximity to each other. They state the general evidence is consistent with exposure to a chemical attack.
8.99 the arching of the bodies indicates exposure to a highly toxic, lethal substance.
8.100 The specific nature of the chemical cannot be identified from video and photographic evidence.
8.101 the discolouration seen around the victims eyes is not associated with any known chemical weapon.
8.102 The FFM state the wet hair seen on the victims is possibly related to heavy sweating immediately prior to death.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Be the first to comment on "The OPCW Douma Findings."