(This report updates a previous report from Prof. Postol we posted
on April 16, 2017 – please read the full text of this update at the link
below.)
The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur: Analysis of the Times
and Locations of Critical Events in the Alleged Nerve Agent Attack at 7 AM on
April 4, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria
Posted
on April 18, 2017 by WashingtonsBlog
By Theodore A. Postol, professor emeritus of
science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. Postol’s main
expertise is in ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air
dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught
courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological
threats – at MIT. Before joining MIT, Postol worked as an analyst at the
Office of Technology Assessment, as a science and policy adviser to the chief
of naval operations, and as a researcher at Argonne National Laboratory.
He also helped build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career
scientists to study weapons technology in relation to defense and arms control
policy. Postol is a highly-decorated scientist, receiving the Leo Szilard Prize
from the American Physical Society, the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Richard L. Garwin
Award from the Federation of American Scientists.
For background on Dr. Postol’s previous essays
on this issue, see:
THE NERVE AGENT ATTACK THAT DID
NOT OCCUR:
ANALYSIS OF THE TIMES AND LOCATIONS OF CRITICAL EVENTS IN THE ALLEGED NERVE AGENT ATTACK AT 7 AM ON APRIL 4, 2017 IN KHAN SHEIKHOUN, SYRIA
ANALYSIS OF THE TIMES AND LOCATIONS OF CRITICAL EVENTS IN THE ALLEGED NERVE AGENT ATTACK AT 7 AM ON APRIL 4, 2017 IN KHAN SHEIKHOUN, SYRIA
Introduction
This analysis contains a
detailed description of the times and locations of critical events in the
alleged nerve agent attack of April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria – assuming
that the White House Intelligence Report (WHR) issued on April 11, 2017
correctly identified the alleged sarin release site.
Analysis using weather data from the time of
the attack shows that a small hamlet about 300 m to the east southeast of the
crater could be the only location
affected by the alleged nerve agent release. The hamlet is separated from the
alleged release site (a crater) by an open field. The winds at the time of the
release would have initially taken the sarin across the open field. Beyond the
hamlet there is a substantial amount of open space and the sarin cloud would
have had to travel long additional distance for it to have dissipated before
reaching any other population center.
Video taken on April 4
shows that the location where the victims were supposedly being treated from
sarin exposure is incompatible with the only open space in the hamlet that
could have been used for mass treatment of victims. This indicates that the
video scenes where mass casualties (dead and dying) were laid on the ground
randomly was not at the hamlet. If the location where the bodies were on the
ground was instead a site where the injured and dead were taken for processing,
then it is hard to understand why bodies were left randomly strewn on the
ground and in mud as shown in the videos.
The conclusion of this
summary of data is obvious – the nerve agent attack described in the WHR did
not occur as claimed. There may well have been mass casualties from some kind
of poisoning event, but that event was not the one described by the WHR.
The findings of this
analysis can serve two important purposes:
1. It shows exactly what needs
to be determined in an international investigation of this alleged atrocity. In
particular, if an international investigation can determine where casualties
from the nerve agent attack lived, it will further confirm that the findings
reported by the WHR are not compatible with the data it cites as evidence for
its conclusions.
2. It also establishes that
the WHR did not utilize simple and widely agreed upon intelligence analysis
procedures to determine its conclusions.
This raises troubling
questions about how the US political and military leadership determined that
the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged attack. It is
particularly of concern that the WHR presented itself as a report with “high
confidence” findings and that numerous high-level officials in the US
government have confirmed their belief that the report was correct and to a
standard of high confidence.
(Please link to
the source website for the details)