MIT Expert: Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria Was Staged
Leading weapons academic claims no concrete evidence Assad was behind attack
A top weapons expert has claimed that the US has no concrete evidence that Bashar al-Assad was behind the chemical attacks that killed 80 civilians 2 weeks ago.
Dr. Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has stated that the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria was staged, raising questions about who was actually responsible.
The suggestion that the Assad regime was behind attacks led to the Trump Administration launching a missile strike against Syrian airbase, causing massive tensions between Syria's allies Russia and the United States.
Dr. Postol's details report on the chemical attacks has revealed that it was actually a false flag designed to give the US a reason to launch an offensive against Assad.
The report doesn't point the finger towards who may actually be responsible for the nerve gas attack, that included 30 children in the death toll, but it said it was caused by "people on the ground" rather than being dropped from an aircraft as the White House report claims.
Postol's report states:
"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 6 am to 7 am on 4 April 2017."
"In fact, the 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."
"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."
According to IBT, the image Postol refers to is that of a crater containing a shell inside, which is said to have contained the sarin gas.
His analysis of the shell suggests that it could not have been dropped from an airplane as the damage of the casing is inconsistent from an aerial explosion. Instead, Postol said it was more likely that an explosive charge was laid upon the shell containing sarin, before being detonated.
"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."
The implication of Postol's analysis is that it was carried out by anti-government insurgents as Khan Sheikhoun is in a militant-controlled territory of Syria.
Postol, formerly a scientific advisor at the Department of Defense (DoD), has previously outlined similar inconsistencies with US intelligence reports. Following the 2013 chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta, Postol again said the evidence did not suggest Assad was responsible – a finding that was later corroborated by the United Nations.
In his latest reports, Postol hit out at what he says is a "politicization" of intelligence findings.
"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."
"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."
"I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization 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."
"And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would not have approved the document going forward."