MIT Weapons Expert: Latest Chemical Attack in Syria was Staged
Following the chemical attack in Syria, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) warned that the first casualty of war is the truth, and he questioned what we were told about the attack and who was responsible as the Trump administration launched an unconstitutional attack on a Syrian airfield. Now, an MIT professor and weapons expert is challenging the official narrative and asking for the Trump administration to refute his conclusions.
On Tuesday, Congressman Massie posted to Facebook an article in which Theodore Postol of MIT says there is no concrete evidence linking Assad to the attack.
“I think it’s important to collect all the facts before forming a conclusion, and I assure you I will do that,” wrote Massie. “Here’s an article that challenges the current media narrative about what happened in Syria. I hope the intelligence community will present evidence to Congress to address the apparent inconsistencies highlighted in this MIT professor’s review of the publicly available facts.”
Mr. Postol is a leading weapons academic and formerly a scientific advisor at the Department of Defense (DoD). He claims that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged. This obviously questions who was responsible, and he comes to the same conclusion that we have come to here, the Islamic State in the area, not Assad.
“I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.” Postol said.
“In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April,” he adds. “This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.”
“The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet,” Postol said. “It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened, the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end.”
Keep in mind that Khan Shekhoun is an area controlled by anti-Assad Islamic terrorists, the same terrorists that have pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State.
“No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it,” Postol said. “All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report [from Ghouta in 2013], was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.”
Postol says the report by White House Intelligence is a “politicisation” of intelligence findings.
“I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicisation of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it,” he added. “And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.”