OPCW Internal Whistle Blowers


Home Forums Discussion Forum OPCW Internal Whistle Blowers

This topic contains 9 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  michael norton 3 days, 21 hours ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #48201 Reply

    intp1

    The Douma attacks were claimed that Sarin and Chlorine was used in the final stages of a battle to clear this area of Rebels and which it was more or less immediately declared that Syria and Russia were guilty of perpetrating and which subsequently resulted in a US cruise missile attack on Syrian infrastructure.

    There were obvious arguments against the claim, such as use of illegal chemical weapons were completely unnecessary to carry out the operation. As far as the Chlorine. My personal argument is that chlorine is a very ineffective weapon, was only used in WWI for a short time before being replaced by other gasses because it simply didnt work. To affect people in open areas needs the right weather conditions and massive amounts (Tons) are needed to have any hope of affecting combatants, quantities which could not even be lifted into the air by the aircraft of the SAA. It was also stated in an early report that presence of organic chloride was part of the evidence. Organ chlorides are everywhere in a city, leaving aside that simple bleach could be a precursor, textiles, adhesives and plastics and their presence in dirt and dust in the street would contain such residues. PVC particles contain chlorinated organic molecules.
    Eventually the full OPCW report was released in which the chlorine aspect was supported but no traces of Sarin were confirmed.

    Since that time, two OPCW whistle blowers have come forward, experts who were involved in collecting and processing materials and contributing reports back to head office. The first one, a ballistics expert revealed that his Engineering Assessment, given to head office stated that the canisters found in the upper floor of a building with a hole in the ceiling were highly unlikely to have ended up in place from altitude, above the buildings and were likely to have been placed there manually. The exact opposite conclusion of the official OPCW report.

    The second whistle-blower stated that ¨the official OPCW chemical analysis, toxicology, and witness testimonies, are flawed and bear little relation to the facts¨. The main flaw was that when samples taken near the areas supposedly affected were not compared with the carefully collected control samples of unaffected areas. This means that the chlorine related hits were no different than background, ambient levels of the same chemicals.

    This evidence, combined with witness testimony stating that the videos of hospitals ¨treating¨ affected ¨victims¨ were staged and reporters such as Robert Fisk who reached the sites early reporting they could find no witness corroboration of any attack at the time, demonstrate with high liklihood that this event did not happen, no chemical warfare substances was present, the initial jump to conclusions were wrong and the cruise missile attack was unwarranted.

    The most important conclusion however is the that the OPCW is obviously severely compromised to the point of being capable of producing reports that directly contradict the evidence produced by their own technicians.

    This also has wider implications for OPCW reports in other, politically sensitive areas, for example Skripal.
    We and even other OPCW connected countries were never allowed to know the exact results of Skripal from environmental and human samples, in terms of actual assay results and chemicals identified (from the Skripals doorknob etc.) We were just told by politicians that the agent was similar to an agent thought to have been developed in Russia, although Novichok isnt a technical term and its chemical structure is not, in any case officially tied down in detail. In any case Porton down only stated it was similar to a (supposed) Russian linked chemical. Similar is not an exact scientific term and could mean anything. E.g. Alcohol molecules are similar to water in some respects and properties. We were also not allowed to know what the OPCW lab detected in these samples. By agreement between the UK Govt. and OPCW all that was stated was that the results were consistent with the Porton Down results (which were not released). If you remember, the Russians spied on the OPCW lab and found that actual assays included another incapacitating opioid agent that was not Novichok. Lavrov released this information in a press release but the OPCW responded after a few days with a de-bunk that this opioid was added to some samples as part of a Lab performance control.
    Like the control environmental samples which the OPCW ignored, could the OPCW be obfuscating results? Could that ¨control¨ chemical have been what both Porton Down and the OPCW lab actually detected but hid by selecting a control that was already there or spiked? Could that control opioid be what actually affected the Skripals? Could that explain why 3 of 4 Skripal victims were not affected immediately on supposed contact and subsequently walked out of their hospital within weeks? Maybe not, but one thing is for sure, untill it is swept with an aggressive clean broom, no clear thinking objective person can trust OPCW reports again.

  • #48203 Reply

    SA

    Thank you for posting this. This has received very little coverage by the MSM. I have also mentioned it in a parallel discussion forum on ME updates in this blog.
    Caitlin Johnstone also writes about this and also includes a sound recording made by the BBC world service of an interview with a journalist Jonathan Steele.
    These whistleblower statements and the increasingly obvious politicisation and therefore lack of reliability and impartiality of the OPCW should be more widely circulated.

    • #48223 Reply

      Clark

      Warning to commenters: Automatic link embedding

      Long threads on the forum become unusable due to the forum software embedding content from linked websites, especially YouTube videos. Please don’t post naked URLs – use the HTML ‘a’ tag instead (manually, or by using the ‘link’ button above the comment form), to turn some word or phrase into a link, as my links above.

      The forums have no pagination; they just get longer and longer. If naked URLs are posted, so much external content gets embedded that the page demands excessive memory (over a gigabyte) and may never complete loading.

  • #48204 Reply

    SA

    Here are further discussions of this topic from RT, Aaron Mate and also a more comprehensive analysis here.

  • #48222 Reply

    Clark

    Here are a couple of relevant links:

    Seymour M. Hersh: Whose sarin?

    Craig Murray: The Troodos Conundrum

  • #48230 Reply

    intp1

    Correction. The release regarding the ballistics of the canisters was an anonymous leak, (which the OPCW acknowledged) not a whistle-blower of known identity.

  • #48268 Reply

    Terry Jones

    Going slightly off topic, with respect to the OPCW how does this affect Salisbury?

    Note here are the reasons why Salisbury occurred, why it was not Russia.

    https://www.gchq-gov.org/2018/10/22/wsb/

  • #48458 Reply

    Clark
    • #48460 Reply

      Clark

      According to Seymour Hersh in his article The Red Line and the Rat Line, the sarin was analysed at Porton Down and found not to match samples from the Syrian government.

      • #48461 Reply

        michael norton

        The Syrian Government seem to be playing things very gently and calmly, much more calm than in France or Italy or Spain or Greece or the United Kingdom.
        It is the long game.
        Calm, statemanlike, almost serene.

Reply To: OPCW Internal Whistle Blowers
Your information: